Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Portland State University Portland State University
PDXScholar PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses
1976
The History of Gun Control in America The History of Gun Control in America
Gary W. Hansen Portland State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the United States History Commons
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Hansen, Gary W., "The History of Gun Control in America" (1976). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2281. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2278
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected].
AN .ABSTR.::\CT 01" '.l'HE THESIS OF G<'H'Y W. Hansen for. the Mas tm:
of Arts in HiBtory presented February 27, 1976.
T:tt le: The History of Gun Control in America
APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS CO.MHITTEE:
;,,.0 \ It
Tltamas D. Mor·r is -------·--
This thesis examines the significant guu control --------legi.s lat ion enacted in the Unii.:ed States, and the movement
~-to enact it. Tt is a content:ton of thi.s thesis that s<?~nt.1.-----mcut favm: ing gun cont·!:.·ol com\f:.s esnenti.a lly from u~b.;;i.r~
,_ ......_
which are most remote. frc:n Amer.tc..:i 's fronti.~!r her.i-
tage, and thi;: common usag(" cf fire arms. Sent in~i:-:nt op;~·.;;.e inr.;
gun control~ on thE: other hand, comeG pri.m.r-1ri ly frcfl1 th+~
------- -West and South which are the areas nearent the frontier
-,:.'-,,.,:...,;.-,~·- .
herfra~e. 'J.'he PPP,~~].gj.ty of fh::e~·1rms ir~ th(_:- Uni.ted States _..~ '-.
is a.I.so due, in lnr.ge. measure, to the pL:mem:- background of
2
this nat:i.on. ·rhis thesis also contends that firearms
legislation thus far enacted in America has been ineffec-
tive ,in reduci.ng crime, and that further legislation could ~~
only inconvenience the honest citizen.
THE HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA
by
GARY W. HANSEN
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS in
HISTORY
Poetland State University 1976
TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES:
The me~bers of the Committee approve the thesis of
Gary W. Hansen presented November 26, 1975.
Thomas D. Morris
.,-,...: . . .
APPROVED:
History
and Research
February 17, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER
I AMERICANS AND GUNS 1
II THE SULLIVAN LAW • 8
III THE 19208 20
IV THE 19308 28
v 1940 TO 1960 41 \ r'
VI THE 1960S 51
VII THE 1970S 73
VIII THE MEDIA 86
IX CONCLUSIONS 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY 106
CHAPTER .I
AMERICANS AND GUNS
It is u·nivex:sally accepted that there are more privately
owned guns in the United States than in any other country in. ---------~- --· ------------ --- --
·~d. Though estimates vary, it is likely that there are
?bout 90 to 100 million firearms in private hands in this
country.I This high incidence of gun ownership is a cause of
great consternation to many, both in the United States and
abroad. To these people, mas~ gun ownership is a grave social
danger. These people.have sought for some decades now to .con
trol, in (varying degrees of severity, the availability of,
and the \reedom to own, firearm~ lTheir motive in this pur
suit is the .reduction of cri•e and accidents associated with
guns) Before examining the movement for gun control, it
seems logical to examine the.historic ~ssociation of Americans
with guns wh.ich led to the great prevalence of firearms in
this country.
Throughout America's frontier era, the relationship of
the common citizen to firearms was a close one. The first
settlers in the new world found game abundant, and for the .......-~ .
first time, hunting waa democratized. In the old world, all
game.belonged to the wealthy landlords upon whose prop~rty
they dwelt. It was solely his right to/h~rvest this game, and
2
he exercised this right either personally or through hired
game keepers.2 This tradition of game .. ownership persists to
this day in parts of Europe. However, in America the common
man was free 'to harvest the wild game of the land, and he
·exercised this freedom thoroughly. In addition to game ani
mals, others such as wolves .and foxes which were (or were
thought to be) threats to domestic livestock also had to be
dealt with. For these several purposes, the settler natur
ally equipped himself with· a gun.
~~h~~se fot..Jthich the_ ~ionee...r
felt the need for a gun. Whether it was whites or Indians
who actually commenced hostilities, the Indian posed a threat
·(though often only psychological) against which the pioneer
had to rely largely upon his ~wn means for protection. It
was not possible ~n the pioneer era for the regular army
(whether _British or American) to protect all the scattered
outposts of the frontier, so the defense came either from the
individual or from local militia units which consisted of
nothing more than a group of citizens banded together and
armed with their own private weapons.
Even in the colonial perio~ when many relied on guns
for the utilitarian purposes of supplying food and protection,
the seeds were being sown for a non-util~tarian enjoyment of
the use of firearms. In the South, free from the restrictions
against enjoyment of outdoor activities decreed by the
Puritans of the northern colonies, hunting came to be enjoyed
for the sport that it provided as well as the meat.3 Target
shooting, too, became a popular pastime in its own right, as
well as for the u~eful expertise it could develop.4
For all.these reasons, the gun was omnipresent on the
3
frontie.r. It was a tool of everyday life. A boy was expect-
ed to become competent in its use at an earlr age so he could
help provide his family with food and, if necessary, defens~. 5
Through this necessary acquaintance with the gun, he was alao
liable to le·arn to appreciate it for the sport and relaxation
it could offer.
The importance of the gun to Americans can be seen in
the ways in which they carefully adapted them to the situations
which they faced. Early settlers east of the Mississippi found
the inaccurate smooth-bore musket, and the heavy, large caliber
Jaeger rifles of Europe poorly suited to their needs. They
developed the Kentucky rifle as an answer to the environment
which they faced. Its long barrel helped provide the accuracy
to knock a squirrel out of a high tree without ruining the
meat; its light weight made it easy to carry on long treks
through the woods, and its relatively small bore provided many
shots per pound of the powder and lead which might be difficult
to replenish on the frontier. Though not suited to contempor-
ary standard warfare tactics because of its inability to take
a bayonet, the Kentucky showed it• worth many times in the
Revolution as a much superior weapon to the "Brown Bess"
musket of British regulars in the irregular warfare aiong
the frontier.
4
As explorers, fur trappers, and settlers pushed west of
the Mississippi, the Kentucky rifle began to show weaknesses.
It was replaced by the Plains rifle whose short barrel made
it easy to carry and use on horseback, and which utilized a
ball and powder charge heavy enough to drop a grizzly bear.
As settlers pushed on.to the plains and faced mQunted Indians
for the first time, the need for another weapon was made
clear, a need met by Colonel Samuel Colt's inv~ntion of that
distinctively American sidearm, the revolver. Of this weapon,
·Captain I. s. Sutton of the Texas Rangers said in 1850:
"They are the only weapon which enables the experienced fron
tiersman to defeat the mounted Indian in his own peculiar
mode of warfare. 116 As time passed, Americans .developed other
fi.rearms particularly suited to their needs such as the saddle
carbine and the buffalo rifle.
The gun did not necessarily decline in importance (or
presence) as frontier conditions in an area ended. The United
States remained predominantly rural until just after the First
World War, and the gun played an important part in farm or
ranch life, though the constant threat to personal safety had
passed. ~he gun was still a necessity to the farmer for pest
cont.ro 1 and game was always welcome at the tab le. The custom
of acquainting sons with firearms at an early age persisted
as it does to this day in some areas, and the motivation behind
th is i s c 1ear1 y no t en tire 1 y u ti 1 i tar i a_n • 7
It was clear ~Y the mid 19th century that guns were not
5
only tool~ for those who used them, but also sources of
pleasure and relaxation. Precision target shooting had long
been popular i~ America, but by this time it had begun to take
on a more organized nature. In New York in 1866, the first
national. Schutzenfest (a type of precision shooting brought
here by Swiss and German immigrants) was held.8 In 1873, the
thentwo year-old National Rifle Associatio~ held its first
annual match at its Creedmoor Range on Long Island.9 Such
matches were quite frequent and indicate that the gun was
a popular item of sport even in t~e very urban East. At
about this same time, sport hunting was also gaining many
adherents. In the late 1800's, the most notable A•erican
hunter of the time, Theodore Roosevelt, said, "Hunting in
the W i 1 de rn es s is o f a 11 pas ti mes t_h e 110 s t attract 1 ve • u l 0
In the nineteenth century, too, the famous Boone and Crockett
club was founded to further the cause of sportsmanlike hunting.
Althoug~ the great majority of firearms were being ~sed I
for the perfectly respectable (at least to most people of the
time) purposes of hunting, target shooting and ~elf defense,_
·there is no doubt that others were being used for.very differ-
ent purposes. The violence of towns on the ca~tle and mining
frontiers is legendary, but the urban centers of the east
also showed alarming crime rates. It was in the second decade
of the 20th century that America first became a predominantly
urban nation. It was ·at this same time that organized efforts
began to attribute the occurrence of crime to the availability
6
of guns, and to attempt to reduce crime through controlling ,.-... _ --~___...,
the availability and ownership of firearms, At this time also
many people began to associate the gun with crime and tragic
accidents rather than hunting, target shooting, and self de-
fense; and simultaneously to question the validity of these
tradltionally acceptable reasons for gun ownership. As a
result of such attitudes, there has been a constant pressure,
varying in intensity in relation to events within the nation,
to implement gun control laws. This pressure has led to
three major acts relating to firearms at the national level,
and many at the local level. The remainder of this work will
examine the for~es and events leading to the gun control
movement.
CHAPTER I
NOTES
1 11 90 Million ·Firearms and Rising Rapidlyt" U.S. News and World Reportt August llt 1968t p. 40.
2aoger Caras, Death As A Way o~ Life (Boston: 1970), p. 19.
3Hans Huth, Nature and the American (Berkeley: 1957), p. 9.
4James B. Trefethen~ Americans and Their Guns (Harrisburg, Pa.: 1967)t p. 12.
Sw. Eugene Hollon, Frontier Violence (New York: 1974), p. 107.
6Quoted in Walter Prescott Webbt The Great PLains (New York: 193l)t p. 175.
7 Ho 11 on_, ~. c 1 t • , . p • I 0 7 •
8Harold Peterson, Pageant of the Gun (Garden City, N.Y.: 1967) t p. 188.
9Trefethen, ~· cit., p. SO.
lOrheodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt's America, Farida A. Wiley, ed. (New York: 19.55), p. 182.
CHAPTER II
THE SULLIVAN LAW .
I
The first significant gun control law to be adopted in
the United States was a local ·one, ~bJL-5.u11~ which was
signed into law ~~rk State in~ The act is named
for its author, Timothy D. Sullivan. a Tammany Hall politician.
There is evid.ence, however, th.at Sullivan w.as .greatly influenced
in his draf ti~g of the bill by New Y~~k County Coroner George
P. Le Rrun, who subsequently fought for further gun control
measures .1 <Th~_ impetus- tor ..... th..e... ..... u~_t__.ca.me_ al.Jn.Q&t .. ~?t.~_!.~!_I_._f.Ig.m.
New York City, which was alarmed by its high crime rate, and ' " ,._ .. .,.,_....,._ .. __ ......... __ ~ ________ ...................... ...
it was strongly supported by the New York Times.
Under the provisions of the Sullivan Act, a person must)
obtain a permit to purchase a handgun and another to own it.
The application fee for a purchas~ permit was originally $.50
but was ~aised within 10 years to $20 (non-refundable). The
purchaser is interviewed by police officers and must convince
them that he has "good reason" to own a handgun. He is finger-
printed and must provide three personal references and four
photographs of himself. If a permit is granted, the owner is
then authorized to keep the pistol in only one place (usually
his home). Target shooters and hunters must obtain a special
license to allow them to transport. their handguns. Upon the
death of the owner, the handgun is confiscated. His estate
9
receives no compensation.2 Various other provisions of the
act have been removed or modified by amendment. One original
provision created difficulties: a ban on non-citizens carry-
ing a firearm 0£ any type.
{The wounding by gunshot of New York City's Mayor William
Gaynor in November 1910 seems to have been a great- spur to
the passage of the Sullivan Law. This incident, coupled with
an increa~e in overall crime rates in New York City, promoted
the act.3 In its campaign for the passage of the bill, the
New York Times praised the ., • • • large abilities, good
humored _eloquence, and political skill," of its author. 4 The
Times editorially hoped that the " ••• evil habits of pistol
owning and carrying will gain a new odium, and will be aban-
doned by many--perhaps all outside the distinctly criminal
class."5 All opposi~ion to the bill was attributed to the
economic interests of gun manufacturers and dealera.6 The·
Times stated that there was " ••• no argument against the
bill except that it will reduce sales and thereby pro~its."7
The bill's author, Timothy Sullivan, stated that the bill
would " ••• save more souls than all the pr~achers in the
city talking for ten years."8
{there w_as surprisingly little opposition to the Sullivan
Act at the time of its passage. Thia may be due to the fact
that it received almost no publicity between the time of its. --------~~-·-··---·
introduction in February of 1911 and its signing into law in
May of the same year. With little publicity, and in this
short a time, the opposition could hardly have mustered its
10
full forces. Only one vote was cast against the Act in the
state Senate,9 and two in the Assembly.10 In his opposition
to the act, state Senator Ferris voiced sentiments which would
be repeated again and again in other battles over gun control
when he said: "You can't force a burglar to get a license
for a gun."11 He also argued against the licensing and regis
tration provision of the bill on the grounds that i~ was an
unnecessary encumbrance on the honest citizen seeking a hand
gun for home protection. 12
As soon as the act was signed on May 30, 1911 (it went
into effect September 1), it became an object of much greater
controversy than it had been while still awaiting passage.
This may be because its provisions were just then receiving
enough publicity to be known to the bulk of the population.
The question im~ediately arose as to whether or not a person
who already o~ned ~ handgun would have to surrender it ti he
were not granted a permit. It was decided he vould. 13 Many
were outraged when on September 2, the day after the bill went
into effect, an Italian emigrant named James.Palermo waa
arrested as he walked· out of a hardware store with a shotgun
he had just purchased for hunting for violation of the pros
cription on foreigners carrying arms.14 There were several
arrests of this type in following weeks which invariably re
sulted in acquittal.
On September 6, 1911, New York district attorney, Charles
Whitman, stated that he considered the section prohibiting
keeping unli.censed pis to ls in the home to be an invalid in-
11
fringement on the right to bear arms.I~ To test this parti-
cular point, a New York City lawyer, Joseph Darling, boldly
informed a police captain that he was in possession of an un-
registered handgun. After being arrested for this violation
of the Sullivan Act, he stated: "There are 500,000 persons
with pistols in their homes and I want this law defined, I
want to know what are my rights; what are the rights of any
citizen . ., I have not procured a license because I think
this law is unconstitutional." 16 References to constitution-
ality refer to the United States' Constitu~ion's Second Amend-
ment which states: "A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Darling was supported in his cause by Justice Francis
Pendleton of the state Supreme Court, who also said the law
could not apply to guns kept in the home. Reporting on his
views, the Times said: "Justice Pendleton observed that any
broader construction would bring the constitutionality of the
law itself into question as an act exceeding the police power
and interfering with the rights of citizens to take measures
. 17 fo.r self protection."
This particular question was settled on January 4, 1912,
when Darling's case was settled in the state apellate court.
The majority held that the law could restrict handguns in the
home and held that the act was "regulatory, not prohibitive 0•18
The minority opinion by two judges said the law "prevents house-
holders from defending themselves against mar~uders." 19
12
;J; the first few years after the passage of the Sullivan
Act, there were few favorable comme~ts being made ~n its effi-
cacy. An article in· the Times in February 1912 stated:
"Pistol affrays,. hold-ups, and lawlessness have in no way de-
. 20 creased in the last six months." Magistrate Joseph E.
Corrigan stated: "The new anti-pistol carrying law is ridicu-
lous • You can't pick up a paper nowadays without reading
of a shooting scrape. 11 21 An October 1912, the Times, which}
a<l so strongly backed the Sullivan Act, flatly stated: "The
Sullivan Act ••• has not proven effective in Manhattan during
the first year."22 Justice John Geoff of the state Supreme
Court said of the law: "Its a law that works injury on the
honest citizen an~ affords no protection to ~itizens against
the criminal. 11 23 The figures in fact show that in New York
County in 1911, there were 93 homicides by shooting, while in
1912, there were 114. 24
~esides concern with the fact that criminals were still)
well armed,· there was also consideraple concern over those who
were being refused permits. In one instance, a medical doctor
who had been held up and sought protection was refused a permit
to purchase a ha~dgun.25 This was and is a c9mmon occurrence
under the Sullivan Act, as there is no uniform standard for
granting or refusing a permit and perfectly reputable citizens
can be denied a permit if the officials do not feel he has
"good cause" to own a handgun.
As time passed, the Sullivan Law came to be more accepted
and even gained some praise. The Times interviewed· coroner
George P. Le Brun, the man credited with inspiring the law
in March of 1914. Le Brun praised the act and stated that
seventy-five percent of all homicides are caused by the
pres~nce of a weapon, and that guns are of little value for
defensive purposes. He admitted that there had been no de
crease in homicides since the Sullivan Act, but pointed out
also that homicides .had not increased either. This was by
this time true. The tiumber of homicid•s had stabilized. 26
By 1919, Le Brun was able. to claim a victory for the
13
Sullivap_ Law. The statistics clearly showed that homicides
with guns had followed a downward trend for the past several
years. rather than increasing as they had before the Act.
There is no doubt that the numbers show this, but a more
relevant question is whether the Sullivan Act was the cause
of this. The answer seems to be no. While homicides with
guns had decreased since 1914, so had homicides by other
means.27 An explanation for the decreas~ might be the out
break of the First World War in Europe, which helped provide
employment for those who might otherwise have turned to crime.
After America's entry into the war, perhaps· some w~o would
otherwise have been shooting New Yorkers were instead engaged
in th~ socially acceptable pastime of shooting Germans. There
seems to be some validity to this ai~ce by the 1920's, murder
of all types was.again on the upswing. At any rate, the lower
murder by gun rate seems part of a general trend rather than
a benefit of the Sullivan Act.
Currently, there is a great deal of controversy over the
14
Sullivan Act. Proponents of gun control often hold it up as
a model which the nation should follow, but even they are
split over the question of its efficiency. It would be hard
to assert that New York has been made a safe and non-violent
city since the Sullivan Act. but those who favor the measure
point out that the rate of murder with firearms in New York
City is lower than in other U. s. cities with less stringent
or no gun laws. Only about 25% of New York.City's murders
are committed with guns as opposed to 72% in Dallas and 43.5%
in Los Angeles.28 Those who favor stringent gun control but
oppose the Sullivan Act attribute its failure to the easier
availability of firearms ·outside New York, and assert that ·
only federal regulations can be effective.29
In.·analysis, _there seems little reason to believe that
the Sullivan Act has been effective in preventing crime. The
fact that a smaller percentage of people are murdered with
guns in New York hardly seems relevant. The goal is to prevent
violent crime. It could hardly matter to the ·victim that he
was killed with a weapon other than a gun. Also, the reason
for the low gun murder rate is quite possibly a cultural one.
There is evidence that some ethnic groups that are prominently
represented in New York City have a greater affinity for the
knife than the gun. 30 In examining such p~rcentages, it would
seem wise to note that while the number of gun murders.for the
United States as a whole has declined 20% since· 1930,31 in New
York it has increased 30% since 1940. There is obviously some
thing involved here which is much more important than the
15
s~ringenc' of gun controls. In addition to its lack of effect
iveness in reducing crime, there is no doubt that the Sullivan
Act affects the honest citizen seeking to own a handgun. If
there be any doubt of this, consider New York City Police
Department De.puty Commissioner Leonard Reisman•s reply to a
question from Congressman ·Clark W. Thompson during a con-
gressional inquiry in the 1960's:
MR. THOMPSON: You, in other words discourage the ownership of a pistol under any conditions?
MR. REISMAN: Yes, we do.32
The police, of course, must grant the permit to buy a
pistol. In one remarkable case, a cab driver ·was told he must
surrender his hack license before he would be issued a pistol
license. Perhaps the best summation of the Sullivan Act was
given by the New York Times, its great advocate, in 1924:
''A harsh critic would have some excuse for saying it is ignored
by those who alone would make nef arioua use of deadly weapons
and is effective only in imposing inconvenience and expense on
those whose one purpose in arming themselves would be legitimate
defense of their persons and property. 11 33
The reason for the passage of the Sullivan Act wo~ud
at first glance seem to be obvious--an attempt to reduce violent
crime. But a closer look finds other interesting factors in-
volved. First, violent crime was nothing new to New York. Why
was a very stringent law so suddenly passed? Second, the
passage of the act followed closely on a shooting (that of Mayor
16
Gaynor) which attracted much attention. Undoubtedly~~ sensational incident inspired in aany New Yorkers (especially \
the politicians who passed it) more desire for gun control
than did the many commonplace crimes which constantly occurred.
It was the emotional impact of the crime, not an ongoing in-
tellectual analysis of the crime problem, that led to the
bill's passage.
The timing of the act is perhaps even more slgnific~ act was passed just at the time that America was becoming )
I an urban nation. The frontier era had officially ended jus~/
l, two decades earlier and now it was becoming obvious that
America's future would belong more to the· city than to the
yeoman farmer. This may hardly seem relevant to New York
City (which was certainly the predominant force in the passage~
of the act) which had ~lready been a great urban center for over 1
) a century, but from a psychological viewpoint, it may indeed
be relevant. New York was .Part of a rural frontier nation I
.~ whose bright future had alway~ seemed to shine in the west.
long as the country was in this state, the gun would be a (
common item of everyday life; even those living in Nev York ~ City would recognize it as such, though it was not a common ,l
// When it w,... tool in their particular section of the country.
/ clear that America would no longer be a rural nation, those
living in areas most remote from rural America became less
tolerant of its ways. The gun w~as now seen by many of the
city's inhabitants as the instrument of the criminal rather
17
than the tool.or hobby of the honest citizen. Thus, sentiment
for restri~ting the ownership of firearms was nurttired. While
this is admittedly speculative, it is reinforced somewhat by
the fact that there seems to have been little or no pressure
for gun controls before this time, and even to this day such
stringent.regulations have been enacted only in the largest
cities in the east.
CHAPTER II
NOTES
lNew York Times, March 1, 1914, p.· 10 •
. 2Robert Kukla, Gu~ Control (H.arrisburg, Pennsylvania: 1973), pp. 307-315.
3New York Times, ~· cit., April 27, 1911, P• s.
4Ibid., May 12, 1911, P• 10.
5Ibid., May 17, 1911, p. 12.
6Ibid., May 10, 1911, p. 8.
7Ibid., May 12, 1911, p. 10.
8Ibid., May 10, 1911, p. 8.
9Ibid., May 10, 1911, p. 3.
lOibid., May 17, 1911, p. 12.
llibid.' May 11, 1911, p. 3.
12Ibid.
l 3Ibid., ·August 30, 1911, p. 6.
14Ibid., September 2' 1911, p. 6.
15Ibid., September 6' 1911, p. 20.
16ibid.' September 24, 1911, p. 11.
17tbid., January 3, 1912, p. s.
l81bid., January 4 ., 1912, p. 18.
201bid., Febr'l:lary' 25, 1912, .P. 14.
21'1bid.
22rbid.
231bid.
241 bid. , January 3, 1919, p. · 3.
25 Ibid.,· November 27, 1911, p. 12.
2 6 Ibid • , January 3, 19 19 , · p • 3.
27rbid.
19
28carl Bakal, The Right To Bear Arms (New York: 1966), p. 2 70.
29 Robert_Sherril, The Saturday Night Special (New York: 1973). p. 238.
30John McDonald, The Murderer and His Victim (Springfield: 1961), p. 56.
310 How Guilty is the Gun?", National Review, July 21, 1968, p. 640.
32Kukla, £.!!.• cit., p. 246.
33 New York Times, February 4, 1924, p. 12.
CHAPTER III
THE 1920'S
It was in the years immediately following the First
World War, the same time that Ameri~a bec~me a predominantly
urban nation, that sentiment for federal gun control legisla-
tion began to arise. Such sentiment came from two immediate
sources: first, the same spirit of idealistic reform which
led to prohibition~ and second, the rise of organized crime
in the 1920s. Though extreme measures died with little
support, one federal regulation (a rather pointless one) was
enacted, and the opponents of the gun did exert so•e influence.
An unidentified Baptist minister, speaking in 1921,
indicated both the extremity of proposals of the era, and
the clear tie of the gun control movement of the era with ~·
prohibitionist sentiment:
Let the w.c.T.U. and other reformers get busy in a reform that will mean something worthwhile ••• Let's fight the gun ••• Let's put out of commission every manufacturer of arms for individual use. We put the saloon keeper oqt of business and stopped the brewer and distiller. Why not take away the rights of those men who manufacture arms to shoot and kill. Why not include the toy pistol as well and save our boys and little children from getting the habit. Why not have another amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Why not prohibit the m~nufacture ·and sale of guns, pistols, firearms of every description to everybody, pwivate individual, officer of th~ law, corporation. ~uainess concern, everybody?
1 Why not? If nobody had a gun, nobody would need a· gun.
21
The minister's challenge evoked some controversy and
brought seve:ral answers to. his challenge of "why not". Captain
Paul Curtis, Jr., writing in Field & Stream, said: "Truly we
are in a dangerously Puritanical age when a few mollycoddles .•
with good intentions, can try out their theories for the pre-
vention. of crime at the expense of every honest, red-blooded
man in the land." 2 The Wall Street Journal also opposed any
such regulations on the grounds that experience with the
Sullivan Law had shown that gun control was ineffective. In
commenting. on harsh legislation, the Journal said: "It sends
to jail honest people, ignorant of the law, and it makes the
armed miscreant safe in carrying a gun ••• u3 Nevertheless,
sentiment such as that of the minister was growing. In 1921,
Senator John K. Shields of Tennessee introduced a bill to
prohibit the sale of handguns.4 His measure was not very,
popular and was not even debated on the floor of the Senate.
[The campaign for. gun control continued, however,, carried
~mostly by newspapers of large eastern cities,5 The anti
\gun forces enjoyed at least one victory in 1924 when Sears ' Roebuck announced that it was discontinuing the sale of all
firearms. In explaining this decision, Chairman of the Board
Julius Rosenwald stated: "We feel the moral side of all public
questions is the right aide, not only because we want to be
right, but because it is good business."6 Apparently, either
morality changed rapidly or the proscription o~ gun sales was
not good for business as it did not long survive. The
Washington News, in commenting on this action by Sears, also
22
commented on the passing of the frontier in saying: II . . . even homes don't need guns for protection as they once did." 7
second victory for gun control proponents also seemed
in 1924. In this year, a bill (HR
to ban the sale of pistols through the mails was passed by
the House of Representatives. This bill would only have pro~·
hibited sending pistols through the mails.a It would not
have· ended mail order sales of handguns since they could still
be ordered by mail and delivered by express or other means
than the u.· s. mail. Thus~ the only effect of the bill was·
to create the nuisance of paying higher delivery charges on
mail order purchases. Despite this fact, the bill was de-
bated in Congress as hotly as if it had been of major signi-
ficance to either side in the question. The reason for this
may have been that the pro-gun forces saw HR 9093 as an
entering wedge for further controls. A measure to prohibit
transport of weapons by means other than the mails had already
been proposed,9 an~ of course there was much current talk of
greater restrictions or bans on some, or even all, firearms.
Conversely, the anti-gun forces, besides seeing some utility
in HR 9093 itself, knew if this measure died, they could pass
no stricter regulations.
~ The stated purpose of the HR 9093 was to control crim~ [~"large cities. 10 The major concern for its passage clearl~
came from the urban centers of the nation, not the rural
countryside or small towns. Despite the aforementioned
weakness of the bill, the hope of its prop~nents that it alone
would reduce crime was made obvious when Congressman John
Miller of Washington was asked if he felt the measure would
prevent any criminal from obtainin~ firearms. He replied:
"I certainly do." Miller also made a common assertion about
the handgun·which is still heard today when he indicated
that he felt such guns have no sporting use and stated that
they are "an· especially designed weapon with which to take
human life. 1112
The chief speaker for the pro-gun forces was Congress-
man Thomas Blanton of Texas, a state ~ith a rich frontier
heritage. Congressman Bl4nton stated that he would like o
see criminals disarmed, but he felt such legislation would
23
not accomplish this. He also stated that he did not
that men normally had the right to go about carryinR
but that their right t~ keep them must be protected.13
In speaking of the desirability of keeping handguns,
Blanton made an interesting statement which was prophetic in
its allusion to Americans facing Oriental ~artial arts and
perhaps echoed the then current fear Americans felt of the
"Yellow Peril":
I want to say this: I hope that every American boy, whether he i~ from Texas, New York, or Washi~gton, will know how to use a six-shooter. I hope he ~ill learn from his hip to hit a dime 20 paces off. It would be their only means of defense in combating that deadly art of jiu jitsu in close quarters should war ever face them with such dangers. It is not brave men· who know how to shoot straight that vi~late laws or carry concealed weapons.14
Despite Bla~ton's pleadings, HR 9093 passed the house
24
by a vote of 282 to 39. The Grand Rapids Herald, in praising
the bill and backing further reg~lations, made assertions
similar to those of Congressman Miller when its editorial page
said of the pistol: "It is not the weapon of sportsmen or
backwoods pioneers. It is not the favorite of ·target shooters.
It is ·not bought to kill game or break clay pigeons. It's
single and sole purpose is the killing of human beings."15
Despite beliefs such as those of the Herald, HR 9093 had reached
its high point in the Congressional vote. It was referred to
committee by the Senate without debate.
The defeat of HR 9093 did not. discourage proponents of)
strict gun control. By 1926, New York City Chief City Magis
trate William McAdoo had proposed a federal law.which woul}>
have, for all practical purposes, banned all handgun sales .•
McAdoo had long been a supporter of his state's Sullivan Law
and now wanted the natiori to adopt a much stricter measur~.
McAdoo's bill proposed placing a tax of $100 on the sale, gift,
or barter of every handgun, and a tax of one dollar on each
round of handgun ammunition with ammunition to be sold only in
q~antities of f~f~y, one hundred, or one thousand. Such w~a
pons already owned would be seized and destroyed.16 Lamar
Berman, in 1926, published a book, Outlawing the Pistol, in
whith he supported measures such as those of McAdoo. In this
book, Berman argues for the need of strong gun control at the
federal level on the grounds that prohibition had not been
effective until enacted on the federal level."17 This argument
25
is odd since shortly before this he stated that violations of
the National Prohibition Act were the most common form of
crime. It ~ould seem that Berman--from his viewpoint in the
middle of the "noble experiment"--could·have made up his mind
about the efficacy of it.
Be~ides backing stricter regulation of guns, McAdoo was
also a supporter of placing greater regulations
biles, which he also considered one of the great
on automo~ contributor,_}
to crime.18 This is an unusual reversal of roles since in more
.recent times, pro-gun forces have frequently argued that cars
kill more people and are more used in crime and involved in
accidents than are guns, yet no one proposes very strict regu-
lations on them; and this argument has been given no credence
by their opponents. At any rate, neither of McAdoo•s proposals
on either cars or.guns was destined for acceptance. The bill
he had drafted died without debate on the floor of Congress.
1' ~e year 1927 saw the adoption of a bill, HR 4502, tO)
· ban the shipment of handguns by mail. This bill was virtual+y
identical to the earlier HR 9093 which had died in the Senate.
Though these two bills were virtually the same, there was no
hot debate aver the later measure as there had been with the
earlier one, and HR 4502 easily passed in both the House and
the Senate. The reason for this is not entirely clear, ~t\
it may well be that since there was no imminent threat of the
passage of a ban on transporting a handgun by means other than
the mail, the nuisance imposed by the bill would be worth
enduring if its passage would temp~rarily satisfy the opposition.
26
Too, the eloquent Mr. Bianton was not present to argue against
the measure. There were some assertions that HR 4502 would
abridge the right to bear arms, and the bill's proponents again
ex~ressed their doubts of the handgun's non-crim(nal uses.
However, debate was tepid.19 The measure was signed into law·
by President Calvin Coolidge. (whet at the time discouraged
passage of_ any stricter measures) on Febr~ary 8, 1927.20 Thia ~
act was the culmination of the gun control efforts of the
1920's.
The ban on pistols by mail has been in effect for 48
years now. Seemingly no one has since suggested 'that it helped
to disarm criminals. It was a senseless measure.( If crimi-/
nals could obtain guns by mail before 1927, they could obtain
them by express after. At the same time, the honest citizen
was now forced to pay higher fees for the delivery of hand-
guns and to have to travel in some cases a considerable dis-
tance to an express office to pick ·them up. HR 4502 meets
the classic description of gun control legislation offered
by pro-gun people in that it worked hardship on the honest
citizen while in no way hindering the criminal. ______ _,_,.._.._.. _ __,,_____ _______......,.
CHAPTER III
NOTES
1 11 For Pocket Disarmament," Literary Digest, June 25, 1921, p. 30.
211 The Necessity of Pistol Toting," Literary Digest, August 6, 1921, p. 33.
3Ibid.
5 . "Closing the Mails to Murder," Literary Digest,
January. 10, 1925, p. 33.
6uA Spike for the One•Hand Gun," Literary Digest, December 13, 1924, p. 34.
7rbid.
Bcongressional Record, 68th Congress, 2nd Session, December 17, 1924 (Washington, D. c.: 1921), p. 725.
91bid., p. 726
lOibid., p. 725.
11 I b i d • ·, p • 7 2 6 •
12Ibid., p. 727.
13rbid.
14Ibid., p. 728.
15 "Closing the. Mails to Murder," Literary Dige.st, January 10, 1925, pp. 33-34.
l6Lamar'Berman, Outlawing the Pistol (New York: 1926),p.35.
17Ibid., p. 53.
19congressional Record, 69th Congress, 1st Session, May lq, 1926, pp; 9692-9696.
CHAPTER IV
THE 19308
The decade of the 1930s was an eventful one in the
field of gun control. This decade saw the adoption of the
first two significant gun control laws on the federal level:
the National. Firearms Act in 1934 and the Federal Firearms
Act in 1938. Though these two laws were not controversial
in their final forms since they did not affect the right of
honest citizens to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns, the
controversy over the initial stricter version of the first
of these led to another significant event: the first involve
ment of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the battle
over gun control legislation. In addition, there.was at the
beginning·~f the decade of the thirties a nearly successful
attempt to tepeal New York's Sullivan Law.
There was some carryover from the 1920's in the moti
vation of those seeking gun control in the thirties. The
idealistic extremism of those seeking to ban all guns was
still present, but was diminished in strength, probably due
to recognition of the obyious failure of.the similar attempt
to ban llquor. The concern over disarming the criminal had
increased as people witnessed the depredations of organized
crime in the twenties and early thirties. Ther~ was a simi
larity to the Sullivan Law in the passage of ·the N~tional
29
Firearms Act in that both were spurred by attempted poli-
tical assassinations. Those opposing stringent firearms laws
continued to argue that they hindered only the honest citizen.
The near repeal of the Sullivan Act came as a result
of the attempt to pass the Uniform Firearms Act in New York.
This act had been drawn up in the 1920s by Karl T. Frederick,
a New York attorney and NRA member (and later NRA president),
and a group of members of the United States Revolver Asao-
ciatiQn, an organization for competitive target pistol
shooters. ~~act-b:~ned possession of handguns by persons
who had been convicted of a crime of violence, minors under
age eighteen, drug addicts, and habitual drunkards. It re-
quired a permit to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle. In
addition, the act required dealers to be licensed and pro-
vided a 48-hour cooling off period between purchase and delivery
of a handgun as a method to help prevent crimes of passion.
Such laws are today universally in effect, but were unpreceden-
ted at the time. During the twenties, the Uniform Firearms
Act was adopted by California, North Dakota, and New Hampsh~re.
In the thirties, it was adopted by Alabama, Indiana, Pennsyl
vania, South Dakota, and Washington. The act was approved by
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws in
1926, and by the American Bar Association in 1930.1
It was clear from ·the start that the Uniform Firearms
Act would meet a somewhat hostile reception in New York. New
York City's Police Commissioner, George v. McLaughlin, in
1926 ~ttributed the law to firearms manufacturers eager to
protect their economic interests. He rightly pointed out
that the act would not prevent formerly non-violent felons
from obtaining handguns, but rather foolishly attacked the
30 .
act's definiti6n of a pis~ol as a firearm with a barrel under
twelve inches by saying that a criminal could easily obtain
a handgun with a barrel thirteen inches in lengt~. 2 Hand
guns with barrels over twelve, or even ten inches are ex-
tremely rare, and are hardly concealable. They are almost
never employed in the.commission of crimes.
r-------The Uniform Firearms Act, in a slightly modified form,
was introduced in New York in 1931 as the Hanley-Fake Act.
The act passed handily in both the senate and the assembly.
All that stood between its passage and the replacement of the
Sullivan Act was the signature of Governor Franklin D.
lRoosevelt.3
Roosevelt held an open hearing on the bill in March of
1932. The chief opposition to the bill at this hearing was
McL~ughlin's successor as New York City Police Commissioner,
John Mulrooney. Mulrooney had already succeeded in having
the bill amended so as to exempt New York City from its
provisions. Now he argued against it replacing the Sullivan
Act in any part of the state on the grounds that it would
enable residents of New York City to avoid the harsher act
by simply purchasing guns outside the city.
In testifying for the Hanley-Fake bill, Karl Frederick
said that the honest citizen should not be forced to be
fingerprinted before he could purchase a gun; that this
31
classed him as no better than a criminal. Roosevelt replied
that one should feel no stigma in being fingerprinted. To
this. Judge George Champlin from upstate New York retorted·
that citizens in his part of the state felt as Frederick did
on this matter and frequently evaded the fingerprinting pro-
vision of the Sullivan Act. Also speaking in favor of the
Hanley-Fake Act were Assistant District Attorney James Wilson
of New York City and Walter ·Newcomb of Erie County. They
both spoke of the ineffectiveness of the Sullivan Act, and
its inconven~ence to the honest citizen. 4
r---- Despite the sentiment favoring the new law, Roosevelt
} decided to veto its passage. In announcing his veto,
Roosevelt again urged that citizens should.not be offended
by the fingerprinting.requirement of the Sullivan Act, and
also denigrated the legitimate applications of handguns.5
The only serious challenge to the Sullivan Act died with
lthis bill.
sentiment was growing for some kind ~ ontrol legislation on the federal level, seemingly spurred;'
by the attempted assassination of President-Elect Franklin
Roosevelt by Guissepe Zangara early in that year. Writing
in Vanity Fair in 1933, Stanley Walker referred to the
Uni t.ed States as a "ga t goofy nation," and clearly related
America's predilection for violence to guns and to the
frontier heritage when he attributed national violence to
" • customs of the country which date back to border
days when dis?utes were settled with fists or with the gun,
32
and the silly, meaningless and haph•zard reguiationa govern
ing the sale and regulation of firearms."6
{~_/"In July of 1933, Attorney-General Homer Cummings stated
that existing gun controls were inadequate, and that legis-
1-_!ation on the ·matter was required.71 Cumming• would prove to
be the dominant force in the move for gun. control in the
1930s, and indeed promised a "fight .. to the finish" on this
issue.8 Cummings was an.arch-enemy of crime and was not
adverse to employing exaggerations to prove his points. In
one instance, he stated that the armed underworld was twice
the size of the entire u. s. Armed Forces. This works out
to one in every 244 citizens being an armed ga~gster.9 He
arrived at this figure by counting all armed crimes in the
nation's largest cities, assuming that each crime had been
committed by a different person, then doubling this figure
since the number of people in these cities totalled about half
the population of the u. s.10 This is hardly scientific metho
dology. (~
Cummings urged passage of a law which would place
extremely severe regulations on "gangster type" weapons.
Cummings' definition of gangster type weapons included
machine guns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, and all hand
guns .11 It was over the issue of handguns that the NRA be-
came involved in the controversy.
The NRA had originally been formed as a result of the
poor mar~smanship exhibited by Union forces from the urban
~ east during the Civil War. Confederate forces from ·rural
33
areas where guns were an everyday item had consistently out-
shot them, and had coat the Union many lives. The goal of
the NRA at the time of its organization in 1871 was to en-
courage civilian markmanship so as to provide a reservoir
of trained marksmen in times of war. 12 The NRA sponsored
local, national, and interna.tional matches in order to pro-
mote interest in marksmanship; and it soon broadened its
activities to include the interests of hunters and gun
collectors as well as target shooters. The government had
shown considerable interest in the activities of the NRA.
One of its early presidents was former President Ulysses
s. Grant. President Theodore Roosevelt was an enthusiastic
life member of the NRA, and in 1905 he signed .a bill which
allowed NRA members to purchase surplus guns, ammunition, and
shooting equipment from the government at low cost.13 When
Cummings' proposed bill thteatened the right of ownership of
weapons commonly kept by its members, the NRA became involved
~n the area of firearma legislation,
Just how much support Cummings' original bill had is
hard to determine. The bill was backed by the General Federa
tion of Women's Clubs, which boasted two million members. Mrs.
Grace Poole, president of the federation, said their motto was:
"disarm the gangster, not arm the citizen. 11 14 The federation
felt that its greatest.enemy in the battle for gun control was
the NRA,·but boasted that its two million members could best
the one million of. the NRA. This is an interesting comment,
since NRA membership at the time was about 50,000.
34
When Cummings' .original bill, including virtually con-
fiscatory regulations of handguns, was proposed, the NRA
notified its members, a large percentage of whom wrote to
their legislators to make the opposition to the bill known.
NRA officials also testified before a Congressional Committee
considering the bill.15 The Federation of Women's Clubs did
about the same to ~romote the bill. The results of this
confrontation are made clear in congressional debate over the
final version of the bill which had eliminated provisions on --:- - ------ ---~
~· When a member of the committee which had considered
the original bill was asked why pistols and revolvers had
been eliminated from the act, he replied:
,----
Protests came to the committee from some ladies' organizations throughout the country objecting to the elimination of pistols and revolvers. The majority of the committee were of the opinion, however, that the ordinary, law abiding citizen who feels that a pistol or revolver is essential in his home for the protection of himself and his family should not be classed with criminals, racketeers, and gangsters; should not be compel~~d to register his firearms and have his fingerprints taken and b~ placed in the same class with gangsters, racketeers, and those who are known as criminala.16
With provisions on handguns removed, the NRA fully sup-
ported the act. There was no objection made to the removal
of handguns from the bill in Congressional debate. The bill I
passed with no debate in the Senate.j In the House, Congress~
man Blanton who had so strongly argued against handgun control
a decade before indicated his support for the bill and when
asked by a colleague what the bill was he replied: "This is
to stop gangsters from buying machine guns. 11 17 lThe bill was
signed into law in 1934 and became known as the National
35
Firearms Act~ In its major provisions, it put a virtually
confiscatory $200 tax on the purchase of machine guns,
silencers, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and certain other
gangster-type weapons. Sporting arms were not affected. _j Those who favored the stron&er law proposed by Cummings
accuse4 the NRA of lobby~ng and carrying out the dictates of
the arms industry. The facts do not seem to bear this out.
The General Federation of Women's Clubs was just as involved
in the battle as the .NRA, and its voice was clearly heard.
The NRA is financially supported by the arms industry only in
that it accepts advertising from them in its journal, The
American Rifleman, even as it does from other sources •. The
NRA and the arms industry have differed several times in
their positions on gun control. The NRA is not hireling of
its interest.
Cummings and his supporters were greatly discouraged
the final provisions of the National Firearms Act. By
of 1934, Cummings had come out in favor of registra
tion of all guns, including rifles and shotguns. He did not
state what fee was to be fixed on registration. Cummings
stated that he did not know if fear of registration arose
from " . . • frontier tradition or fear of firearms manufac-
turers. 11 18 At the same time, he said he would again ask
Congress to include handguns in the Na~ional Firearms Act,
presumably also under the $200 tax provision. 19 In the same
year, it was announced that Cummings would introduce on the
federal level the Alco Bill, named for its author. California
36
Director of Prisons, Julian Alco. This bill called for out-
lawing entirely the possession of any weapon capable of being
concealed. The Alco Bill died, however, after it was condemned
by the California State Police Officers Association, who said
it would encourage rather than prevent crime; and that it was
" • opposed to every tradition of a hardy and red-blooded,
self-relia~t, and law-abiding race of Californians an~
Amer.icans. 1120
r-- For the remainder of the 1930s, Cummings introduced or
inspired numerous bills for more stringent gun control laws.
These generally called either for the registration of all guns,
or for including handgu?S under the ~~ It
would be pointless to discuss all of these since they were
very similar, and there is little evidence that any were very
popular) Th~y never got far in Congress and were not debated
on the floorj A poll taken in 1938 does reveal heavy public
sentiment (84%) favoring registration of pistols. 21 T~ere are
several reasons, however, why this should not be taken as in-
dicating support for measures such as Cummings proposed.
First, th~ term registration is disarming. Simply asking
someone if he favors registration does not reveal to him
such provisions as $10 to $200 registration fees, finger-
p~inting, interviews, and likely refusal of permission to
purchase a handgun (as under the Sullivan Act). Also, the
press does not reveal in the period 1934 to 1938 such strong
sentiment for pistol registration from the public. According
to its index, more letter~ appeared in the New York Times in
37
this period opposing gun control than favoring it. It would
seem that if 84% had favored Cummings' measures, they would
at least have received some extensive debate on the floor
of Congrees--but they did not •
. (~-----_ The second federal act concerning firearms in the
thirties came in 1938. The act, which had been proposed as
an alternate to one of Cummings' bills which would have banned
all mail order sales of handguns and registered all gu~s~ 22
was 'heartily endorsed by the NRA. The American Rifleman said
of this act: "The B{ll meets the support of every law abiding
shooter in the country."23 Cummings' bill was scarcely con-
sidered and the alternate bill passed almost without debate.
This law is known as the Federal Fire_arJlULAct of 1938. The ----.__.....----- -- ' - - .. ------..__ __
major provisions of this act make it a federal offense for a
felon to transport, ship, receive, or carry firearms or hand-
gun ammunition across state borders, made it illegal to possess
a firearm on which the serial number had been altered and
required dealers to keep records of gun sales.24 With the
passage of this act, the major push for gun control in the
1930s ended.
gun control acts of the 1930s are
are aimed squarely at criminals and do not affect
law-abiding citizens •. Honest citizens do not buy machine
ns, silencers, or sawed-off shotguns (with the exception of
a few collectors); and do not.obliterate serial numbers.
lThese laws are useful in that they may provide an offense on
r
38
which to convict a criminal when evidence of a more serious
offense is lacking, just as do the income tax laws enacted
at about the same time. If ther infringed on the rights of
honest citizens, these laws would be less desirable--but
they do not. ·Whether they have done anything to stop the
commission of crimes with firearms is very debatable. The
provisions against sawed-off shotguns can easily be evaded
by anyone with a long barrelled shotgun and a hacksaw. While
machine guns are less visible in -crime now than they were
in the 30s, this is probably more due to .the ending of pro-
hibition and mob warfare than to the National Firearms Act.
~omer Cummings himself said that criminals steal their mach
ine guns. 25 . We· still read occas~onally of thefts of auto-
matic weapons from National Guard armories and other sources
to supply criminals. Thus, probably such weapons are still
available to1
those criminals who want them, but now juries
l:an convict the criminal for having them.
CHAPTER IV
NOTES
lBakal, ~· cit., pp. 159-161.
21bid.
3 I b i.d • , p • 16 2 • .
4New York Times, March 25, 1932, p. 4.
5 tbid.·, March 29, 1932, p. 4.
6stanley Walker, "A Gat Goofy Nation," Quoted in Review of Reviews, August, 1933, p. 55.
7New York Times, July 18, 1933, p. 7.
8Bakal, ~· cit, p. 176.
9sherril, ~· cit., p. 48.
lONational Rifie Association, Firearms & Laws Review 1 9 7 5 ( W a sh in g· ton , D • C • : 19 7 5 ) , p • 5 5 •
llBakal, P..l!.• cit., pp. 168-169.
12Trefethen, ·~· cit., pp. 30-35.
l3Ibid., p. 130.
l4"Club Women Mapping War on Gangsters," Literary Digest, June 16, 1934, p. 19.
15Bakal, ~. cit., pp. 170-174;
16congressional 'Record, 7 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, June 13, 1934, p. 11400.
17rbid.
18 New York Times, October 19, 1934, p. 3.
40
1 9 I b i d • , .o c to b e r 2 9 , p • 2 •
20Trefethen, ~· cit., p. 294.
2lceorge Gallup. The Gallup Poll: 1935-1971, pp. 99-100.
2 2 Bak a 1 , ~. c i t • , pp • l 7 6 ·- 1 7 7 •
23"Progress Report on Firearms Legislation," American Rifleman, April, 1937, p. 39.
24 .. Trefethen, ~· cit., p. 294.
25New York Times, October 29, 1934, p. 2.
CHAPTER V
1940 TO 1960
r-The period from 1940 to 1960 was a relatively quiet o~ in the field of gun control legislation, at least at the fed-
eral level. This gap is probably due in large part to events
of the ~' the Kore!.!'LJla.r, and the Cold War ,...._-.....--~ <#~~~...,~
which made it seem undesirable to many Americans to in any way
obstruct the right of citizens to own· firearms. Also, this
period was without bot~ the organized gang warfare of the
twenties and thirties and the attempts at major political
assassinations which had drawn so much attention to the gun
control issue~ During this same period, however, events in
the firearms world began to make.even more evident the link
of th~ firearms owner to his frontier herita~e.
As 1940 dawned, with America's entry in the Second World
War rapidly approaching, the~e was a minor movement for gun
control for two new reasons. First, there was a desire to
disarm subversive groups and individuals. Second, it was thought
that registration would be a helpful method of taking an inven-
tory of privately owned arms which might be useful in national
defense.I ·It is not specified whether proponents of these
measures expected spies to dutifully step forward to register
th~ir handguris; or if they were fea~ful of Nisei suddenly form-
ing armed battalions to storm San Francisco. The second reason
42
ignores the· fact that if the situation were desperate enough
to r~quire t~at privately owned guns be pressed into service,
virtually any type would be useful, as demonstrated in Britain
in the early days of the war~ Britain's plight reveals another reason why Americans
did. not want to institute gun control laws at this time. They
were witnessing what was happening in European countries with
strict gun co~trol laws. Britain is the best known example
here. Strict gun control laws had been in effect in the
United Kingdom for decades before the outbreak of World War
II, and its populace was largely disarmed. When invasion by
Germany threatened, they were so desperate for weapons that
some Home Guardsmen were actually armed with the same "Brown
Bess" muskets their forebears had carried in the American
Revolution almost two centuries earlier. 2 American citizens
were even cafled on to donate their personal arms to aid
British defense, and about 7,000 guns were given by Americans
for this purpose.3
In other parts of ~urope. Americans saw citizens being
forced to surrender their registered guns to the invading
Nazis. This fact has been given much attention by pro-gun
forces in opposing registration, but has been minimized by
anti-gun forces. Carl Bakal, in his popular book, The Right
To Bear Arms (subsequently re-titled No Right to Bear Arms),
has indicated that the Nazis did not depend on registration
lists to seize firearms, but merely issued proclamations
ordering their surrender and prescribing harsh penalties for
43
those failing to comply. He also indicat~s that an armed
citizenry would pose little threat to invading military forces
4 anyway. Bakal appea~s to be incorrect in both these asser-
tions.
First, let us consider the effectiveness of issuing a
proclamation banning guns and harshly punishing offenders.
Certainly, many would surrender their arms· under the. procla-
mation, but not those who were willing to use them against
the enemy in the first place. These people would realize that
they were facing a death penalty for r~sistins, so why should
they fear the same for bearing arms? Also, there is the fact
that Bak~l is simply not correct in stating that the Nazis did
not depend on registration lists to confiscate arms. In at
least some countries, they did.. This was certainly the case
in Czechoslovakia5 and Denmark6. Lastly, consider Bakal's
assertion that privately owned guns were of little consequence
anyway. If this were true, why did the Nazis confiscate them
in every country they invaded? Why have all totalitarian gov-
ernments in recent times taken this action? This does not
imply that such actions are not sometimes undertaken by non-
totalitarian governments, but simply states that they invari-
ably are taken by totalitarian governments. At any rate, one
can easily see.why, with the examples of Europe close at hand,
Americans were not anxious to enact anti-gun laws in the
~arly forties.
~ After American entry into the war, it seemed that any
stigma which might have been attached.to the NRA in the.
44
controversy over gun control in the thirties would be erased,
as its varied services proved valuable to the war effort.
Fifty-five to sixty percent of all NRA members served in the
Armed Forces during the war, and ten percent of all service-
men received their marksmanship training from NRA members.
The. NRA furnished, without cha~ge to the government, firearms
training films and manuals which were adopted for official use.
Over 150 r~nges owned by NRA affiliated clubs were loaned or
leased to the government. The plans for the Home Guard units
which were formed by many stated were drawn up by the NRA, and
the NRA even recruited dogs and trainers for Coast Guard Beach
Patrols through its contacts with sportsmen. 7J The services of the NRA to the country during the war
were acknowledged by President Harry Truman on November 14,
1945, in the following messagei
The National Rifle Association, in the periods between· our last four wars, has done much to encourage the improvement of small arms and marksmanship in the Regular services, as well as in the National Guard, Reserve units, and the civilian population.
During the war just ended, the contributions of the association· • · •• have materially aided our war effort.
I hope the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be coniinued. It is. a program which is good f~r a free America.8
[This was high praise for the NRA.and, by extension, for
civilian gun ownership. The lessons of war had seemed to prove
the value of an.armed citizenry, and with the Cold War and
Korea threatening.a renewal of major hostilities, it wo~ld be
45
the late fifties before there was again any significant senti
ment for more stringent federal gun control legislation.~ In the immediate post-war years, events within the gun
world began to emphasize the extent of the role which the fron-
tier heritage plays in gun ownership. Both those who favor
and those ·who oppose stringen~ gun control le~islation admit
to the importance of our frontier past in the desire to own
guns. Those who oppose gun control claim that our association
with the frontier gave us the oppor~unity to learn of the plea-
sures that shooting sports could provide. The desire to
collect guns springs from a desire to preserve historic items
of the past. The ownership of firearms is seen as a right of
all free men. Those who favor strict gun control admit that
the frontier heritage has led to the predilection of Americans
to own guns, but feel this is a childish and dangerous thing.
W. Eugene Hollon, in his book. Frontier Violence, says:
"Americans have not known a true frontier for more than three
generations, yet we refuse to grow out of our cowboy mentality
and our love for guns. What started out as a necessity for
survival has become part of our national culture. 119 Whether
for good or for bad. the guns that people have been buying for
the past thirty years clearly show that gun owners have as
much interest in the frontier in their selection of arms as in
obtaining the most efficient weapons for their use.
The Colt Single Action Army or Peacemaker revolver is
probably the most famous gun in the world. This pistol, in
.45 caliber, was the standard sidearm of U. S. Armed Forces
46
from 1873 to 1892, and was revived by the military for a time·
in the early 1900s when it was found that the newer .38 revol
vers had insufficient stopping power agairtst fanatical native
insurgents in the Philippines. In addition, it was offered
in thirty-six calibers and numerous variations for civilian
use. It has been featured in virtually every western .movie
since The Great Train Robbery. By the 1930s, these guns were
a drag on the market and could be picked up in pawn shops
for a few dollars. The model was discontinued in 1940 as Colt
geared up for war production. The last batch were chambered
for the .455 British service cartridge, and these obsolescent
weapons were shipped to England to arm the Home Guard. Shortly
after the war, with the model no longer in production, used
specimens of this arm were bringing five to ten times their
normal price. Demand was so great that literally dozens of
copies of the Single Action Army revolver appeared on the mar
ket, manufactured both here and abroad. In the U. S., the
Sturm-Ruger Corporation, which had previously produced only a
semi-automatic .22 pistol, introduced a line of ext•rnal ~o~ies
of the Peacemaker iq caliber ranging from .22 to .44 magnum
and soon established itself as one of the major sporting arms
producers. Finally, in 1955, Colt gave in to the overwhelming
demand and resumed production of the Single Action Army.10
This type of sto~y has repeated itself many times in the
years since World War II. The western styled Winchester Model
94 Carbine baa continued to be a best seller after 81 years of
47
continuous production.. By the early 1950s, mass production
of the muzzle loading Kentucky Rifle had commenced in order to
meet a growing demand. The Civil War.Centennial brought pro-
duction of Colt, Remington, and other cap and ball revolvers,
and of Civil War type rifled muskets. Today it is poss~ble
to ~uy replicas of virtu~lly any muzzle loading weapon ever
used in America~ 11 The single shot hunting rifle, modeled
after those of the late 1800s, has also returned after being
entirely absent for 60 years. The Ruger ~orporation, which
had risen ~o fame fo~ its line of frontier styled handguns,
also spurred the single shot's return by its introduction of
the first modern single shot in the 1960s. 12 The new single
shots include replicas of the Springfield Cavalry Carbine of
the Indian War era and the Remington buffalo rifle. The link
to the frontier could hardly be clearer. It is plain that no
one in the shooting world wishes to deny, or is ashamed of,
his frontier heritage.
[Mean~hile, in the area of firearms legislation, some
sentiment for stricter controls had again risen by the later
1950s. The rea~on for this is difficult to ascertain since
the newspapers and magazines of this period do not demonstrate
a great deal of interest in the subject. Neither was there
any major rise in violent crimes, nor any spectacular political
assassinations at this time. Nevertheless, a Gallup poll in
August of i959 showed that 75% of the.population as a whole
and 65% of gun owners would favor a law requiring a police
permit for a per~on to buy any gun. 13 Another poll in September
4A
r--1 of the same year show~d 59% of all persons interviewed f•vor-·
ing a total ban on handguns, except for police use. This same
poll showed that 49% of the_ respondents had a gun in their
home. The only major reason suggested by the press in the
1950s for such ~high anti-gun sentiment is a concern over the
eruption of violence over the civil rights issue in the
south. 14
Despite the sentiment exhibited by the polls,· there were
few measures introduced for gun control on the federal level
in the fifties, and these did not progress far. Five gun con-
trol bills introduced. in the late fifties all died in commit
tees .15 In r~conciling the polls w~th these facts, one is
forced to conclude that either the polls were not accurate,
the respondents were not sufficiently concerned with the ques-
tion to press for action on the matter, or that when it came
to actually supporting such measures, their feelin~s were more
conservative. The death of the bills has been attributed by
. 16 anti-gun forces to the efforts of arms manufacturers, but
analysis throws some doubt on this. First, as previously men-
tioned, the press shows little interest in gun control at this
time. If people had backed gun legislation in the 1950s, the
press would reflect this. Second, in the late 50s, the arms
manufacturers tried to force through their own gun law. This
was a measure to ban importation of military guns which were
readily converted to sporting use at a lesser cost than domes
tic sporting arms. 17 This measure (which was not backed by
49
the NRA) was ultimately· defeated. If the arms industry could
block other's gun bills, why couldn't it pass its own? Gun
laws died in the 1950s simply because there was insuf f ic~ent
support for them, re·gardless of ~~-~~t P~.P.P~e said in the polls • .. __ .......... _ .. ~«.-, '"""""~~--.-·'"''-'""'"Uoiij.,._"J',,,.- "' A~•++, "° ~~ ... - ·~~~ ..
_ _,,, ..... ---.,\' --~
//,,,- The period of t'he 1940s and 50s was a relatively quiet .,,\
(one in the gun control co.ntroversy. It . ~:8.~. however. __ • __ ~Pr_!_!.YAJ i to the storm of the 1960s.
~~---·-~·---·--·-r~·
CHAPTER V
NOTES
1110ur Point of View," Scientific American, November !'940, P• 243; May, 1941, P• 259.
2The World of Guns, (Skokie, Illinoi~, 1964), pp. 19-23.
3Kukla, ~· cit., P• 123.
4 Bak a 1 , ~. cit • , pp·. 2 7 7 - 2. 8 2 •
5Kukla, ~· .£..!!.., p~ 439.
6Ibid., p. 440.
7Ibid., pp. 121-123.
8Ibid., pp. 123-125.
9 Hollon, ~· cit., p. 121.
lOJohn Amber, "Ruger's Reactionary Rifle," 1967 Gun Digest, p. 4 (Chicago: 1967).
llToby Bridges, ed., Black Powder Gun Digest (Northfield, Illinois: 1972), pp. 272•279.
12Amber, ~· cit.,. P• 6.
13Gallup, £.E.• cit., pp. 1625-1627.
14•~sale of Firearms," New Republic, June 18, 1956, p.2.
1 5 "Legislative Activity in 1960," The American Rifleman, July, 1960, p. 20.
16sakal, ~· cit, pp. 121-123.
17"Foreign Military Arms Embargo," American Rifleman, September 1960, p. 6.
CHAPTER VI
THE 1960'S
~he sixties have thus far proved to be the stormiest
decade for the gun control controversy. This decade was
marked by sensationil -~ol~tical assassinations and by mas
sive urban violence. Many laid the blame for these tragedies
on the availability of firearms. Reaction against guns led
to numerous proposals for stringent gun controls, and in the
he&t of the controversy many intemperate remarks were made
by people on both sides of the issue. There was an intensi
fication of feeling a~ainst even traditionally acceptable
uses of firearms. Most significantly, the sixties saw the
adoption of the first ·federal gun law which inconvenienced
the honest gun owner.
Somewhat surprisingly, the sixties opened on a note of
harmony between shooters and those seeking further gun control
legislation. Both sides acknowledged that a p~oblem did
exist. This problem was the sale of firearms by mail to
criminals and minors. At the time, the only restriction on
mail order sales was that the order had to be accompanied by
a signed statement that th~ buyer was over 18 (21 for hand
guns) and had not been convicted of a felony. No check was
generally made on the accuracy of these statements. The fact
~ that interstate shipments to felons and minors were already
52
illegal under the Federal Firearms Act and enforcement of
this act would have alleviated this problem. The push, how-
ever, was for new legislation~~~·-.Ji~ .. -~,,#~~-·~·~-····~·"--·-~~·-~--~~-~·~-~~n~~ .
. r;h-;-;;;;:·~ imp~tus for gun laws in the early sixties ~_.,_)
~ame froM Senator Thomas Dodd of .Connecticut. Dodd had be
come con~erned with the problems in mail order gun sales as
a result of his work with the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
to Investi~ate Juvenile Delinquency. which began large scale
study of the availability of firearms to minors in March of
1961. The subcommittee was aided in its study by the NRA
and other representatives of shooters and the firearms in-
dustry.2 The bill finally decided on by Dodd to cope with
the problem was introduced in August 1963 as s. 1975. This
bill merely required that a notarized sworn statement be sent
wi.th orders for handguns. This mild measure was supported by
the NRA and other shooters.' groups.3J
~~t John F. Kennedy was assassinated ;;,----L_e_e~H-~-r.ve'Yj
war surplus rifle on November 22, 1963. On {
27, Dodd introduced a series of amendments to his
stated that he would use the assassination of
President Kennedy as a "tragic opportunity" to strengthen it.
Dodd's amended bill included all firearms, not just handguns;
and required that the affidavit sent with the order be certi-I
fied by the chief law enforcement official of the buyer's
~ localitY•j Thus the bill would have made it more difficult to
purchase a gun by mail than it was to buy a gun locally
almost anywhere except New York, Dodd soon modified this J
53
latter measure to require instead that the buyer furnish the
seller. with the law enforcement official's name and address,
and that the seller notify the official of the buyer's name
and address and the.type of gun he was purchasing. 4 This
latter change had been requested by the NRA, who felt the
original proposal would have been tantamount to licensing.
Dodd ma~e the change readily, seemingly indicating that he
felt the NRA-approved alternative would be·just as effective.SJ
Though Dodd's newly amended bill extended controls to '(
rifles.and shotguns, the NRA continued to support it. During/}
hearings on the amended bill, when RRA Executive Vice Presi-l
dent Franklin Orth was asked b~ Senator Philip Hart if the · }
NRA supported S, 1975, he replied: "In the form introduced J
this morning the NRA supports th.e bill of Senator Dodd. u6~ ·
The fact that ·the NRA supported this bill is important
since it has frequently been implied that ~he NRA led the
opposition to the bill.7 Dodd himself realized that this
was not the case and said of those who suggested it: "I
think there has been a studied effort to have it ~ppear that
the NRA is opposed ·• •• That just· is not s~. n8
)Despite the fact that the NRA supported S. 1975, oppo-
sition to it did arise in the shooting world. The main rea-
son for this seems to have been confusion over the provisions
of the bill, pe~haps caused in part by the rapid series of
amendments introduced to the bill. Many shooters thought
the bill i~cluded registration, which was felt to be unde-
sirable. Some simply did not know what the bill called for
54
and opposed it because in the highly emotional period follow
ing the assassination, they feared very restrictive measures
might be passed. Such fears were likely aroused by the rash
of articles that appeared in the weeks following the assassi
nation supporting strict gun laws. One such article' appear
ing in.Newsweek cited ·a number of mail order ads which had
.recently appeared in gun magazines_. One of these ads offered
a .22 caliber gun concealed within a pen. An item such as
this, clearly useful only for criminal purposes, would surely
upset the average reader. What Newsweek failed to mention
was that the pen fired only blanks, and was about as danger
ous as a firecracker. This article also attributed a peculiar
morbidity to shooters by saying that the price of Italian
Carcano rifles (the type used to shoot Kennedy) would increase
rapidly from about $15 to $100 due to interest in having a
gun like that used in the murder.9 Twelve·years later,
Carcanos sell for about $30, a smaller rate of increase than
that of most military rifle~.
This same article in Newsweek also attacked the "fron
tiersman11 attitude of shooters who relied on _the protection of
the second amendment' saying they " ••• seem to miss the fact
that the frontier is secure and the armed forces, National
Guard and local polic.e protect the nation ••• ulO The ques
tion of the rights insured by the second amendment is one
that had been raised even at the time of the passage of the
Sullivan Law, and has become much more controversial in recent
years. Though a constitutional interpretation is far beyond
55
the scope of this paper, since arguments over the amendment
became increasingly common in the 1960s, it is appropriate
that some discussion b~ .. &.iven ··to -t·he .me.a~~~g of this amend-
ment. /...,.,,-
/Arf icle II of the /r
Bill of ·Rights states: "A we 11 ."' \
r~iulated militia being /
I I ,gtate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
necessary to the security of a free \\
not be infringed." Those who say this amendment does not
arguments:
\
) the militia and in current times, the National Guard is the /
equivalent of the militia; second, the word "people" in this/
amendment confers a collective rather than an individual , /
guarantee a citizen the right to own guns have two basic
first, the right to bear arms extends only to
Upon examination, these arguments see'D! ... to..-hot·a,... ~,,.........,-·· .. ~--right.11
\
~~-=~i~~t: _____ --------- ---Considered in terms of the milieu in which it was
written, the second amendment seems to have had two basic
purposes. The first of these was to insure the availability --------------..-----.. ....,.., -- --- ... -....,....._.... .............. -.-~·,.....------... -·_.,,,,----~"~.-.,..,.._--. ____ ....... of a republican army. The fear held by the founding fathers ___________ ;..........----~,,..-.-- ....... ~
of standing.armies is well known, and the militia system was
a viable alternative. The militia at this time was consi-
dered to consist of all able bodied men between sixteen and
sixty, hardly equivalent to the National Guard. While the
development of large standing armies may seem to have out-
dated this concept, an act of Congr~ss indicates that· it
perhaps has not. In 1903, Con~ress specifically defined .the
militia as consisting of two parts: the organized militia,
56
which is equivalent to the National Guard; and the unorgan-
ized militia, which consists of all able bodied men from
eighteen to forty-five.12 Thus in 116 years, the definition
of militia changed by only a few years in age limits. That
the second amendment confers an individual right rather than
a collective right seems obvious from the fact that the en-
tire Bill of Rights is meant to insure the rights of indi-
viduals.
The second purpose behind the second amendment was to
insure the right to revolution. This may seem strange, but it ----------------------------
is perfectly in harmony with th~ polit~cal theories of John
Locke, who greatly influenced the framers of the Constitution.
The people had the right to change the government in redress
of grievances. That this was an intent of the amendment is
made clear in the debate over its passage in Congress. During
this debate, Elbridge Gerry said that the purpose of the Bill
of Rights was to provide protection against the government.13
He was not contradicted.
It should be made clear that the secon'd-amendme-;t is
not a total ban on any regulation of firearms, but a ban on ----------any infringement of the right to have them. _,....,_,,,__.,.~ ... _,..-t·-·•.-, _ ..... ____________ .......... ___ , Th e a u tho r w i 11
not attempt here to define at what point this right is in
fringed, or whether the original reasons for the amendment J are still valid. Suffice it to say that e..c..Ql1~.---r---__.
amendment is repealed. the citizen does have a cons~.u~ --------.... ---..... --_,.._._ -·--·-- ----- ... ------~-· - ··-·-• ~o•.• . ........,.,,._\>,_""'-"""',..,....._,."~"-""""'«-.....,._,..~,...-z_• .,,_,#~do. --~~l!Mf'll'ft>......,_,_...~~ .. --
ri t to bear arms.
While newspapers and magazines were pressing for
passage of even more stringent measures, Dodd's bill was
57
making little progress. Opposition to the bill came chiefly
from those who thought the bill amounted to registration and
hadn't taken the time to determine the facts, and from poli-
tical extremists. It is a disadvantage for pro-gun forces
that extremists of both the left and right have frequently
sided with them on the gun control issue and have thus made
it easy for their opponents ~o employ the tactic of guilt by
association. Those favoring gun.control have always made
the most of statements such as those of a man who objected
to S. 1975, saying that it and the civil rights movement were
h . 14 both part of·t e international communist conspiracy. Left-
ist groups such as the Black Panthers have also opposed gun
control.
Just why the Dodd bill did not pass or even get out of
committee hearings is hard to determine. Despite the oppo-
sition to it, the bill did have the backing of the·NRA, the
arms industry, and, according to polls, 78% of the popula
tion.15 Nev~rtheless, S. 1975 died at the end of the 88th
Congress in 1964. Dodd replaced it with an identical bill
in 1965, but soon withdrew this replacement and instead sub-
mitted at the reque~t of the Johnson Administration a much
different bill, s. 1592.16
S. 1592 would, in its most important measure, have
ended all interstate mail order sales of firearms to indi-
viduals and prohibited the importation of all foreign mili-
tary guns and other guns deemed unsuitable for sp~rting
purposes (possibly including all handguns, by ·some inter-
58
pretations.)17 There were many reasons why legitimate gun
owners objected to this new Dodd bill. The ban on mail order
guns would make it impossible to obtain rare guns or other
guns which were in short supply locally. It would also make
it impossible to take advantage of bargain prices offered by
out-of-state dealers. An outright ban on mail order sales
seemed to be a foolishly harsh measure when the provisions
of s. 1975 would have screened mail order sales more closely
than most local ones. The ban on importation of foreign
military guns was just as objectionable. It was absurd to
declare such guns as unsuitable for sporting purposes when
they had been· used for just such purposes for decades. in
either original configuration, or converted into custom
sporting weapons. Military guns were also a specialty of
many collectors who would be deprived of their hobby if the
law passed. A proscription on foreign milit~ry arms seemed
pointless anyway since there was no way it could deter crimi
nals from getting some other kind of gun. Considering all
these factors, it should not be surprising that the sh~oting
world, including the NRA, was almost unanimous in its oppo
sition to s. 1592.
Dodd's new bill had much support in the Johnson Adminis
tration. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenba~h, in backing
the bill, made a well-publicized statement that a study had
shown that of about 4,000 Chicagoans who bought mail order
guns, 25% had criminal records.18 What Katzenbach did not
mention is that this supposedly representative sampling was·
taken from a ghetto area, and that 24% of these "criminal
records" were for traffic offenses. 19
59
·The battle overs. 1592 continued throughout 1965 and
into 1966. The arguments over the bill remained basically
the same as those of past gun control controversies. S~pport
for the bill increased in Apgust 1966, when Charles Whitman,
a student at the University of Texas, shot 44 fellow students,
killing 13. 20 The day after this tragedy, President Lyndon
Johnson publicly called for gun registration and stricter gun
control legislation.21 A poll taken shortly after the inci
dent .showed 68% favoring stricter laws. As usually follows
such incidents, the major news magazines all published arti
cles backing stricter gun laws. The only article appear~ng
outside of gun magazines opposing strict legislation at this
time ~as published in the conservative journal of opinion,
National Review. In this article, William Buckley, Jr.,
defended the traditional purposes for keeping arms, and point
ed out that neither Dodd's bill nor any bill short of a
totalitarian one would have kept Whitman from acquiring a
gun.22
Despite the boost it received from the Whitman incident,
S. 1592 made no progress. It died at the end of 1966, but
Dodd introduced a similar bill, s. 1, in 1967. By this time,
Dodd's once friendly relations with the shooting world had
changed entirely. Dodd had said in 1965: "I am not against
guns. I own some myself."23 In 1967, he said: "I never saw
any sense to guns anyway, and· I do not go backward by saying
60
so. 11 24 It is obviously impossible to reconcile these state-
ments; surely, on one occasion, Dodd was lying.
The mtuation in the gun control controversy in the\
first months of 1968 was about the same as it had been since
·i965. Dodd and others continued to push for strict gun laws
and made little progress. This changed on April 4 of that
year when Martin Luth~r King, Jr., was assassinated by a
gunman in·Memphis, Tennessee. On this same day, a Senate
Judiciary Committee approved a provision of the Omn~bus Crime
Bill to ban the mail order sale of handguns.25 The Obmnibus
Crime Bill was a series of sweeping. laws which the Johnson
Administration had proposed as a result of crime and the
urban disturbances of the sixties.
As might be expected, the shooting of King led to another
spate of anti-gun ar.ticles in the media. The Boston Sunday
Globe ran an article on the gun control controversy which con-
eluded with this quote from Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal:
"I am against all your gun laws. It is argued that the Con-
stitution supports them by holding that every citizen has the
right· to bear arms. Then to hell with the Constitution."26 ~
espite such sentiments, it appeared that no further
than the ban on mail order handguns would be enacted.
May of 1968, an attempt by Senator Dodd to add long guns
to the mail order ban was turned down by a ·vote of 54 to 29
in the Senate. 2 7 Then, on June 5, 1968 ,7 Sena tor Robert
Ken n.e d y was as sass in a t e d •
61
anti-gun sentiment yet seen. The NRA headquarters building
in Washington, D. c. was picketed for a week by people carrying
signs bearing such slogans as: '.'Stop Violence, Stop the NRA,"
and "Lobby for Murder.u28 The NRA received thousands of tele
grams blaming it directly for the shooting of Kennedy,2~ Literally dozens of bills for gun controls were introduced in
Congress ranging in severity from simple affidavit systems for
mail order purchase to total bans on civilian ownership of
some types of guns. Magazine articles were the most fervent
yet in their calls for gun control.
An a~ticle in Time played heavily on the role of the
frontier in gun ownership in America. ·After describing most
frontiersmen as "anti-social misfits," the article goes··on to
say: "Emulating their mythicized forebears, Americans have
turned their country into an arsenal." The NRA was blamed
for defeating gun control laws, and it was pointed out that
John Kennedy had sought a ban on importation of military guns
in the la~e fifties, thus implying that the NRA d~feated this
measure and thus held some culpability for the shooting of
Kennedy with such a weapon. It was cleverly ignored that
Kennedy had backed this bill to protect the economic interests
of the American sporting arms industry, who had requested the
bill, rather than as an anti-crime measure. The article
argued.against there being any Constitutional right to bear
arms, questioned the right to use guns for home defense, and
ridiculed the argument of the NRA that registration will be
a first· step towards confiscation.30 This feeling of the
r I I
I
62
NRA on the subject of registration has often been attacked
as absurdly alarmist, but both the sentiments of anti-gun
forces and bills actually ~ntroduced in the sixties and seven-
ties show that it is absolutely justified.
Newsweek also played heavily on the frontier heritage
in its article on gun control. In speaking of the number of
homicides a.n d suicides in the u • s • , the art i c 1 e said : "In
a nation with a frontier tradition t~is grisly record has
somehow been accepted as a matter of course~" The Constitu-
tional guarante~ of the right to bear arms was interpreted by
Newsweek as not applying to individuals. Itt speaking of
those who held dissimilar views, the frontier again came up
when the article said: "With their frontier traditions,
Americans have long assumed that they have a Constitutional
right to bear arms. 113 ~ Newsweek very astutely inte~preted
pro-gun sentiment when it said:
The NRA is riding a deep current in the American tradition: the self reliance and individual responsibiiity that tamed a wilderness and built a nation. This feeling is by no means dead even in the sophis- · ticated eastern half of the nation, but it runs strongest in the west and the deep south-~and it runs through all layers ·of society.32
·Newsweek also denigrated the possibility of confiscation
of guns being a goal of pro-gun control forces. In a rather
unethical manner, Newsweek included in its article'a reproduc-
tion of an ad for non-fireable replicas of famous firearms.
Unfortunately, the print stating that the reproductions were
not shootable was so small .in Newsweek's reproduction that
63
it is nearly ill~gible, thus the reader is left with the im-
pression that the deadly guns pictured could be bought through
the mail for $15.33
An article in New Republic utterly belies the assertion
that confi·scation was not being sought by some in the anti-
gun mov~ment. The following quotation gives ample reason to
explain the apprehension felt by the NRA and other shooters
over the push for gun control:
Put simply, private citizens should be disarmed. A modest effort in this directio~ would include the following first steps: No -person should be permitted to buy or possess a hand gun or ammunition for any hand gun. Possession o all _automatic and semiautomatic firearms shou d be banned. So should all rifles. However, licen es for the purchase of shotguns for sporting· purp ses could be obtained from the local police chief ho would be required to enforce certain federal s andards.34
These "first steps" would confiscate an absolute minimum
of two-t~irds of all privately owned guns.35 Others shared
the sentiments of New Republic. An editorial in the Detroit
Daily Press said: "No private citizen has any rea$on or need
36 at any time to possess a gun."
r--:-· Gun own e rs we re a. t ta ck e d on p s y ch o 1 o g i ca 1 gr o u n d s , too •
The Freudian theory of guns as phallic symbols was frequently
brought up and it was suggested that gun collectors were trying
to compens·ate for their sexual inadequacy. This ignores, of
course, the fact that Freud interpreted virtually all things,
includi~g baseball games, in sexual terms. One is reminde~, too,
of an incident in which Freud, while puffing on a cigar, was
reminded by a colleague that cigars are ~hallic symbols. To
this, Freud rep·lied: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. 113j
64
An interesting exchange over the psychological implica-
tions of gun collecting occurred in the letter columns of
Playboy magazine. A woman named Barbara Rurik wrote a letter
to the magazine describing in. very graphic terms her belief
that guns are sub~titute phalluses. She then went on to say:
"From my own experience and in comparing notes with other
women, the facts are plain: Gun·nuts make lousy lovers."38
· Playboy printed the following reply to Ms. Rurik's letter
from William Gilmore; Assistant NRA director of public relations:·
I have no way of knowing how scientific Barbara Rurik has been in making this study, but I'm sure that among the 1,100,000 members of the National Rifle Association of America, we can come up with as many volunteers as she may need to continue her research.39
Playboy also received numerous offers of assistance for
Ms. Rurik from individual gun owners, and testimonials as to
the error of .her conclusions from their wives and girlfriends.
rcongress was no.t sitting idle on the gun control question
while the media was pressing for stricter laws. On the very day
that Senator Kennedy died, the Omnibus Crime Bill, including
the ban on mail order handguns, was passed by the House after
having previously received approval in the Senate.40 Though
harsher measures had been rejected shortly before, in the
emotional atmosphere following the assassination, they again
gained strength.
It was apparent shortly after the start of the post-
assassination push for gun control that the legislative battle
would concern primarily three measures: registration, a ban
65
on mail order sales. and a ban on importation of foreign mili-
tary arms. Both harsher and more lenient measures were pro-
posed, but the battle centered around these. Most of the major
firearms manufacturers in the country joined in backing a
proposal for licensing gun owners~ 1 This measure was opposed
by the NRA, aga~n disproving the assertion that the NRA is a
hireling of the arms industry •. At any rate, the proposal of
the arms industry received little attention in Congress~
Debate in Congress generally centered on the same ·Old
arguments from both. sides. Proponents of registration said
it would help to keep firearms out of criminals' hands and
~ould help to trace guns used in crimes. Opponents of regis
tration pointed out that criminals do not register their guns;
that New York City ·has a high crime rate despite its registra-
tion laws; and that instead of helping to trace criminals,
registration could frequently incriminate the innocent since
a high percentage of guns used in crime are stolen from honest
citizens. 4 2
[supporters of the gun control bills made much of the low
crime rates in European countries with very harsh gun laws.
This was met with the assertion that the lower crime rates are
due to cultural, rather than legal differences. While the
anti-gun forces accepted the assumption that the presence of
firearms leads to violence, their opponents argued that the
mere presence of an inanimate object does not lead to the
commission of a crime, and that guns can even prevent crime.
66
A letter from an Idaho Sheriff was quoted in Congress which
stated that the low armed-crime rate in his city was probably
attributable to the fact that virtually all honest citizens
iri the city ow~ed guns.43
.(:The mood in most of the country clearly favored some
gun control. A Harris poll in June of 1968 showed that 81%
44 favored registration. The reasons for doubting that the
figures were actually this high have already been. explained.
Too, in this case one must consider that som~ were probably
voicing mere emotional reaction to the assassination, and
others were perhaps merely joining in a "bandwagon" effect;
but the fact remains that sentiment was high for some action.
Several strict laws were enacted locally. New York City in
August enacted registration of rifles and shotguns, supple-
menting the registration of handguns that had been required
for fifty-seven years under the Sullivan Act~45 Chicago, too,
enacted registration of all guns in 1968.46 An attempt was
made in New Jersey to pass a law confiscating all privately
owned handguns, and registering all long guns. This measure
was .defeated, however.47 With such strong sentiment common,
it was inevitable that some legislation would be adopted._]
----i:r--... ----1 n July of 1968, three bills to register guns came
a vote in Congress. A bill by Senator Joseph Tydings of
Maryland to require federal registration in all states whic
failed to enact iheir own registration laws was defeated 55-31.
A similar measure by Senator Henry Jackson of Washington which
woul9 have ~iven the states until 1971 to enact such legisla-
! .
67
tion was defeated 48-35. A third bill by Senator Edward
Brooke of Massachusetts to simply require nationwide regis-
tration of firearms was defeated 53-31. The majority of votes
against ~he$e bills came from Western or Southern states,
where the frontier heritage is most apparent.4R.J
The · d·e feat. of. reg is t ration was the only victory fo~
ro-gun forces in 1968. The victory of gun control propo-)
ts came in September when the Federal Gun Control Ac~f
1968 (FGCA) was adopted. Every vote against this bill in the
Senate came from a Western or Southern sta~e.49 The New York
Ti mes commented on the se·c t ional nature of the opposition to
gun control in saying: " • it was increasingly apparent
that. the popular pressure for str()ng gun controls that exis-
ted immediately after the Kennedy assassination had been re-
placed by opposition built up among Western and Southern
Senators."50 The sections of the Federal Gun Control Act which
are most relevant here banned mail order sales of all firearms
and ammunition made since 1898 (except muzzle loaders), banned
~mportation of all military guns, banned sales of guns and
ammunition to persons living outside the state of the seller,
and required dealers to keep records of all ammunition sales.
Importation of small foreign handguns was also prohibited by
a sjstem which ~equired pistols to earn a c~rtain number of
points based on size, weight, caliber, and other t"actors.s1_J
CThe Federal ~un Control Act has been in effect for seven
yf>ars now. In this time the crime rate, including the murder
nnd armed robbery rates, has risen. Only a fool would assert
... \
'1
f
68
that this effort at gun control has been successful in thwart-
ing crime. On the other hand, FGCA '68 has imposed a heavy
burden on the legitimate gun owner • One must pay whatever
. prices local stores demand for arms and ammunition. A person
owning a gun chambered for a rare cartridge which is unobtain-
able locally may simply have to give up hopes of shooting the
gun, though ammunition could formerly be obtained from mail
order establishments. It is now difficult to obtain a military
arms at low cost to be converted to sporting use or to be used
for hunting or target shooting. Th~ collector of military
rifles or pistols can no longer hope to complete his collection
without paying exhorbitant rates for additions. A person on an
out-of-state hunting trip can not even replenish his ammunition
supply. FGCA is another law which meets the classic descrip-
tion of gun contro~ by its opponents: i~ hurts the honest
citizen while not affecting the criminal.
Dhough the FGCA was the major action in the field of· gun
control in the Sixties, there was still another significant
event concerning it in this decade. This was the report on
firearms and violence by the National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence, which had been established by
Lyndon Johnson and extended by Richard Nixon. This report took
a strong anti-gun stand. It concluded that strict gun laws
would reduce violence with guns, that there was no Constitution-
al right for indiv~duals to bear arms, ·and that firearms were
largely useless for self-defense.52 It is recommended a ~ystem
of licensing handguns which would require a purchase to show
! .
69
"good reason" to own a handgun (reminiscent of the Sullivan
~ct). ·It was estimated .that the recommended han~gun law would
reduce the number of privately owned handguns by 90%. Owners
of confiscated guns would be compensated an average of $20 per
gun. Registration and licensing of long guns was also recom
mended, 53)
The recommendations of the commission went. unheeded.
probably due to th~ opposition of the Nixon Administration.
The measures ·favored by th·e commission would seem almost
modest,however, compared to some of the proposals whi~h
would arise in the Seventie~
CHAPTER VI
NOTES
lsakal, ~· cit., pp. 188-190.
2Kukla, £.£.• cit., pp. 27-28.
3Ibid., p. 35.
·4 Ibid., p. 37.
· 5Trefethen, ~· cit., p. 294
6Kukla, £.£.• cit., p. 45.
7sherril, £.£.• cit., pp. 170-173.
8Bakal, E.P.• cit., p. 200.
911
Right to Bear Arms," Newsweek, December 9, 1963, pp. 71-72.
lOibid.,'p. 72.
llsakal, ~· cit., pp. 304-308.
12w. Cleon Skousen, "Gun Control or Political Con.trol," Law and Order, October 1975, p. 22.
13GR1e and Seaton's History of Debates in Congress, p. 778 {August 17, 1789),
14Bakal, £.£.• cit., p. 199,
15Gallup, ~· cit., p. 1858.
16Kukla, £.E.• cit., p. 69.
17Ibid., p. 133.
71
18 Ibid., pp. 131-132.
19rbid.
201_E:ic1., p. ?.OS.
21New York Times, August 2, 1966, p. 1.
22williarn F. Buckley, "On the Right," National Review, August 23, 1966. p. 821.
23Kukla, ~· cit., p. 216.
24rbid.
25rbid., P• 343 •.
26Ibid.
27Ibid., p. 344.
2 8 Ibid. , p. 34 5 •
29congressional Record, .90th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 22148, July 18, 1968.
30"The Gun Under Fire," Time, June 21, 1968, pp. 14-18.
31 11 A Question of Guns," Newsweek, June 24·, 1968, pp. 81-85.
32rbid., p. 84.
33rbid., p. 83.
34"The Kind ·of Gun Control We Need," New Republic, June 22, 1968, pp. 10-11.
35 George D. Newton and Franklin Zimring, Firearms and Vi o 1 en c e in Ame r i can Life (Washing ·ton , D • C • : 1 9 6 9 ) , p • xi •
36Kukla, £.E.• cit., Back Cover.
37"The Gun Under Fire," ..Q.P.• cit., p. 18.
18 "near Playboy," Playboy, November, 1968, p. 72.
391bid., February, 1969, p. 69.
40"The Gun Under Fire,"~·:£..!.!., p. 82.
41Ibid.
42congressional Record, 90th Congress,. 2nd Session,
p. 22773, July 23, 1968.
43~bid.~ p. 22148.
441bid., p. 21787.
. 72
45"N.Y.C. Red Tape Chokes Gun Registration," The American Rifleman, October, 1968, p. 70.
46Ibid., May, 1968, P• 6.
47·1bid., August, 1968, P• 22.
48Ibid., November, 1968, pp. 23-25.
49New York Times, September 19, 1968, p.·36.
50Ibid.
SlNRA Firearms and Laws Review,£!!.• cit., pp. 99-103.
5 2Newton and Zimring, ~· cit., pp. x.1-xv.
53tbid., PP• 139-147.
CHAPTER VII
THE 1970S
The 1970s have seen the introduction of gun control
legislation in Congress similar to the stringent measures
proposed in the Twenties. The term: "Saturday night special", ~~bi· y!fl
once known only to gun enthusiasts, has become a householn t_r~·:~ ) )
¥'orc1, tho,1gh it is doubtful that~_}"l....Zlknow its true meaning.
The Seventies have seen an increasing attack on the tradi-
tionally acceptable reasons for gun ownership. As in past
decades, politically motivated shootings have led to demands
for stricter gun control legislation. The decade also saw
an incident in enforcin~ a f~d~ral gun.act which drew fire
from both pro and anti~gun people.
The first significant development concerning gun coDt~
the Seventies was a victory for pro-gun forces. The provi-~
which required that records be kept of all
ammunition sales had always been controversial. Those .who
opposed gun control argued that while this measure was useless
as a crime prevention, it was time-consuming for the sportsman
and amounted to a type of "back-door registration. Many of
those who favored strictet gun controls also came to· believe
that the record-keeping provision was pointless and supported
its repeal. Late in 1970, rifle and shotgun cartridges were
74
exempted from the record-keeping provision. The chief opposi
tion to the repeal of this provision came from Senators Dodd,
Kennedy, and Brooke. 1
Also in 1970, a matter related to guns was. receiving a
great deal of national attention. A network television special
entitled "Say· Goodbye," which was about endangered species of
animals, included severai scenes of endangered animals bein~
hunted in very unsportsmanlike ways. One scene showed a mother
polar bear with two cubs being shot from a helicopter. It was
later revealed that this bear was not actually shot by a hunter,
but had merely been shot with a tranquilizer gun to provide film
footage for the special. Several other scenes were similarly
staged. The discovery of this fakery led to the imposition of
stricter standards on televised nature programs, but damage
had already been done to the image of the hunter. 2
Despite the fact that the FGCA had already been softened
somewh~t, sentiment for stricter gun controls.was by no means
dead. There were still many working fo~ stricter legislation,
especially on handguns, and a new type of legislation was being
considered which gun control opponents hoped would receive
little opposition.
The object of this new legislation was the so-called
Saturday night special. Before the Seventies, this term was
familiar primarily to those in the fields of gun collecting
and law enforcement. A Saturday night special was normally
considered by people in these areas to be a cheap, small, in
accurate, and somewhat unreliable h~ndgun. The special is
75
usually a revolver of either .22 or .32 caliber. Such weapons
are·of little interest to the knowledgeable gun owner. They
are not accurate enough for hunting or target shooting, and
their low power and questionable reliability make them unde-
sirable as defensive weapons. These guns are, however, fre-
que~tly used by criminals. Since NRA members are unlikely to
own Saturday night specials, and major U. s. companies do not
produce them, legislators felt they could attack the special
with little fear of the so-called gun lobby. The definitions
of the "special" in some bills indicates, however, that many
were concerned with banning more than just cheap and poorly
made weapons. Opposition arose also to banning even the true
"special" for several reasons.
The best known of the early bills to ban the Saturday
night specjal was introduced by Senator Birch Bayh. This bill,
while touted as a ban only on the generally useless "special",
actually required that handguns meet a variety of comple~
criteria to be exempt from the ban. The biil would in fact
have made illegal the production and posse~sion of one third
af the models of handguns manufactured in America. Among
these were two of· the most popular .22 caliber sporting pistols
made in the U. S.: the 4 1/2 inch barrelled, fixed-sight ver-
f
sions of the Ruger Standard Automatic, and the Colt Woodsman.
Despite the sweeping ban that Bayh's bill-would have imposed,
t h e b i 11 w a s p u b l .i c i z e d as a b an on 1 y o n th e "s p e c i a 1 " • 3
At the same time that the Saturday night special was be-
coming a subject of concern, other ~ttempts wer~ being made to
76
tnstitutr more Rweeping measures. In 1971, Congressman
Emmanuel Ccller introduced a bill to ban all handguns and
re~ister ·all rifles and shotguns. 4 Later in the same year,
Senator Philip Hart of Michigan introduced a bill which would
have outlawed ownership of handguns by all persons except
police and security guards. Handguns already owned were to
be purchased hy the government at fair market value. Still
another bill to prohibit ownership of handguns was introduced
by Congressman Abner Mikva of Illinois.5
The more extreme measures proposed were not very popular
at this time. Hart's attempt to ban pistols .was defeated by
a vote of 84 to 7 in the Senate. A measure by Seriator Kennedy
t0 register all firearms failed 78 to 11. A proposal by
Senator Adlai Stevenson III to license and register handguns
also went down 75 to 16.6 Part of the unpopularity of these
measures is probably due to the opposition of the Nixon Admini-
stration to registration and other strict regulations. Nixon
had, however, come out in favor of some legislation aimed at
the "special", -but major sentiment for such legislation would
arise only i~ the emotional atmosphere f ollowin~ another spec
tacular shooting.7
On May 15, 1972, Governor George Wallace of Alabama was
shot by Arthur Bremer, with a short barreled .38 revolver.
The wounds suffered by Wallace resulted in permanent paralysis
o.f his leRs. This, of course, resulted in another flurry of
activity in the gun control controversy. The press and many
public figures immediately expressed their belief that this
77 was further evidence that rigid gun control was needed. In
an editorial on the ABC television network news on the night
of the shooting, Howard K. Smith said: "Gun laws would not
take away guns, they would register them," an odd comm~nt con-
sidering some of the bills then pending in Congress. Mayor
Richard Daley of Chicago said the day after the shooting:
''I would hope that this would be the opportunity to do ~ome
soul-searching by the Congress to outlaw handguns;••8 Congress
apparently agreed with Daley since on the same <1ay, a Senate
Subcommittee approved one ~f the Saturday night special bills·.
This bill would simply have banned all handguns with barrels
less than three inches in length.9 It should be noted here that
Bremer's p~stol was not a true Saturday night special, but an
American-made Charter Arms revolver selling.for about $100.
Commenting on the approval of this bill, the New York
Times said: "The move started yesterday by a Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee .to clamp down on the sale of snub-nosed handguns
must become the jumping-off point for a much broader and con
clusive effort. 11 10 Although these sentiments were echoed by
many, this bill progressed no further probably because most of
the legislators realized that it takes only a hacksaw to turn
an eight-inch barreled handgun into one with a barrel of two
inches.
Senator Bayh's bill on Saturday night specials made
somewhat more progress. It was passed by the Senate and
referred to committee in the House. While the ·bill was under
consideration, Senator Bayh received an interesting letter
from Myron Lance, a convicted murderer with a long criminal
~·
78
record who was serving a prison sentence. Lance concluded his
letter in the following manner: "I hope-they pass that gun
law. It'll make it harder for citizens to protect themselves.
That way we could get ~uns easier."11 Bayh's bill eventually
died in committee.· The reason for this was pTobably th~ oppo
sition to a bill which ~ould prohibit many good-quality,
domestically-produced handguns, and a general feeling that the
measure would have been ineffective. Too, some legislators may
have been thinking of what had happened the previous year in
an attempt to enforce the last gun control act they had passed.
/
On June 7, 1971, a group of Treasury Department agents,
accompanied by -Montgomery County (Maryland) police officers,
raided the ·apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Kenyon Ballew. The agents
were acting on a tip that they had received that Ballew's apart-
ment was loaded with live hand grenades, which was a violation
of ~e FGCA as well as local laws. This tip came from a seven
teen-year old housebreaker who had been arrested by the county
police. Fourteen treasury agents and twelve county police took
part in the raid. 12 The agents knocked at the door of the
apartment. Mrs. Ballew, who was sitting nude in the bedroom,
called out: "Who is it?" The agents say they identified them-
selves. Mrs. Ballew says she heard no answer. When.the door
was not opened seconds after .a second knock, six agents broke
down the door with a battering ram. Mrs. Ballew screamed to
her husband, who she ~aid was in the bathtub, to get a gun.
Ballew, a gun collector and NRA member, grabbed a replica of
a Colt cap a~d ball revolver. Rushing to the living room,
79
Ballew saw the first two agents to enter the apartment. These
men were undercover agents dressed as hippies. Before Ballew
could raise the revolver, he was shot through the head by one
of the Treasury agents. Mrs •. Ballew screamed, "Murder: Get
the police." The agents replied, "We are the police," arres-·
ted Mrs. Ballew, and sent Ba~lew to a hospital. Ballew is
permanently paralyzed as a result of his wound. 1 3
No live grenades were found in Ballew's apartment.
Ballew did have a couple of dummy grenades of the type fre
quently sold by surplus stores as souvenirs. Federal author-·
ities lamely argued that Ballew could ha~e activated them by
pouring in the black powder he kept for use in his muzzle
loading guns--but he had not.14
The Ballew case attracted much publicity, and the actions
of the agents in the raid were criticized by iroups as diverse
as the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes gun owner-
ship, and the NRA. Ballew brought a five million dollar suit
against the government for negligence. The suit was finally
decided against Ballew in 1975. In his decision, the Federal
Judge indicated that he was convinced the agents had properly
identified themselves, and that he did no~ b~lieve Ballew had
been taking a bath at the time ~f the raid since the agents
said he was "bone dry".15 The judge did not indicate why he
thought two innocent people would try to resist 26 law enforce
ment officers, or what evil doings he thought the nude Ballew
was up to since he was not taking a bath.
Another flurry of activity occurred after the shooting
! . I
80
of Senator John Stennis in January of 1973. The pattern
followed was generally the same a~ that in the Wallace shoot-
ing. Articles were printed favoring gun control, bills were
introduced, but none was passed. A bill introduced by Senato.r
Kennedy after the shooting of Stennis would have banned all
pistols with barrels under 10 inches.16 ~
This, of ~ourse, would
virtually ban all handguns since only two ot three models have
barrels over 10 inches. Perhaps a c~ntributing factor to the
failure of any p,un control legislation to pass after the shoot-
ings of Wallace and Stennis is the fact that both men continued
to oppose gun control after recovering from.their wounds.
~t gun control legislation in the Seventies has cone~ trated on handguns. Those favoring strict or prohibitory law~ on handguns argue that they have no sporting application, and
are virtually useless for defense.· Gun owners, of course.,.
hotly dispute this. Some legislation on the local level h~s,
however,. been concerned with long guns as well, and we can
reasonably expect such proposed laws to become more evident at
the national level.
In Massachusetts in 1974, a law was adopted requiring
all gun owners to be licensed and obtain a Firearms Identifi-'
( cation Card. Anyone possessing a gun, even a B B gun, without
----~ c a rd i s s u b j e c t to a man d a tor y one-ye a r pr is on sent enc e • 1 7
In Washington, D. C., a bill was introduced to confiscate all
privately owned pistols and shotguns with no compensation to
the owner. A rifle could be owned under a permit, but would
have to be kept at a ~un club. 18 The bill was ultimately
81
withdrawn in the face of strong opposition.
A rather bizarre attempt to ban handguns via a circui-
tous route came in 1974 and 1975 when the U. S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.attempted to ban handgun bullets (not the
whole cartridge., just the projectile) as a hazardous substance.
Authority for the commission to take this step was denied by
Congress, however. 19
Throughout 1974 and 1975, bills have constantly been
before Congress calling for registration· of some or all guns,
prohibition of Saturday night specials, or a total ban on hand-
guns. Registration and the total ban have of course been
opposed by pro-gun forces on the traditional grounds. The
NRA has come to oppose the Saturday night special bans for
several reasons. First, the Saturday night special is seldom
well defined and bills woul~ often proscribe quality handguns.
Second, the NRA holds that the ban on "specials" would be just
a first step towards more sweeping· bans. Thitd, the NRA holds
that bans ". • employing size, metallurgical or similar stan-
dards or characteristics, is arbitrary arid unsound. Such legis-
lation is ineffective in the prevention or reduction of crime
and ignores the crime-deterrent effect of the possession of
firearms by law-abiding owners." 20 Opposition to Saturday ni~ht
special laws has also arisen among the blac~ community. Black
spokesmen claim that blacks in high crime areas need guns for
defense, and can only afford the "specials".21 Despite the
opposition. a new effort to enact further gun controls would be
spurred by the two attempted assassinations of President Gerald
82
Ford (who has backed a Sa tu r d·a y nigh t spec i a 1 ban , but opp o -
sed registration or stricter measures) in September 1975.
Lynette Fromme, a member of the Manson family, attempted
to shoot Ford on September 3rd with a government model .45
iutomatic at a distance of about two feet. Fortunately, she
had failed to chamber a cartridge i~ the gun. On Septembei. 20,
Sally Moore shot at and missed Ford with a short barreled .38
revolver. These incidents were immediately followed by the
usual pressure for gun control. Senator Edward Kennedy said
after .these attempted shootings: ''The overriding less~ns of
these nearly tragic events is that if America cares about the
safety of its leaders, it can no longer ignore the shocking
absence of responsible gun control. 11 22 Mayor Richard Daley
of Chicago said: "You don't see someone shooting rabbits with
a handgun. The only thing you hunt is human beings."23 (One
might note that if Mayor Daley would ever browse through some
gun magazines he would frequently see people shooting rabbits
with handguns.) There was also at this time a heavy attack on
the so-called gun lobby.24
New gun control measures were introduced in Congress, and
ones which had lain dormant were revived. A measure by Congress
man John Cdnyers of Michigan to ban all handguns ·was killed in
a subcommittee. A hill for registration, intrnduced by Senators
Jacob Javits and Charles Percy was, however, under consideration
as was one for registration and licensing gun owners, proposed
by Congressman Peter Rodino. 25 The fate of these bills remains
to be seen.
Two public opinion polls taken in 1975 on the topic of
I
83
gun control show somewhat contradictory results. The Harris
Poll, taken after the attempted shootings of Ford, shows
77% favoring hand~un registration and only 19% opposing. In
1971, the results were 66% favoring and 30% opposing, thus a
strong, increase in_ public opinion favoring handgun registration
would be indicated.26 To the question of whether handguns
should be banned, the Gallup Poll, taken before the assassina-
tion attempts, show~ 55% opposing and 41% favoring. In 1959,
59% had favored the handg~n ban and 35% opposed.27 The in-
creased numbers favoring registration is probably to a large
extent attributable to the fact that many people are unaware
of the fees, fingerprinting, photographing, and other incon-
veniences which are frequently connected with registration.
The growing opposition to a ban on handguns, however, seems
to indicate a gro~ing feeling that such an action would only
honest citizen and make him more vulnerable to the
T~e grow·ing sale of handgun~: i:·n the Seventies may
ndicate that more and more_people are coming to feel that
they can no· t re 1 y e n t i re 1 y on the po 1 ice f cir pro t e c t ion ; or · i t
/ may only me~n that they are discovering the sp~rting applica-
\ -..._~ions of handguns--but it certainly does mean that they will
not support a ban on these weapons.
CHAPTER VII
NOTES
1 "Backdoor Registration of Ammo Partly Ended," The American Rifleman, January 1970, p. 34.
2 11 say Goodbye to How Much?", Ibid., June 1971, p. 65.
3Ashley Halsey, Jr., "What the Bayh Bill Would Really Do," Ibid., September 1Q72, p; 24; 6R.
1P'New Drive Against Handguns," Ibid., July 1971, p. 42.
S"New Bill Would Abolish Handguns," Ibid., November 1971, pp. 4B-50.
6"Mikva Discounts 5-1 Vote Against Gun Ban," Ibid., February 1972, p. 47. --~
7Sherri1 , £_£. cit • , p • 301.
8New York Times, May 17, 1972, p. 26.
9Ibid., May 18, 1972, p. 37.
lOibid., p. 46.
1.1 "Wh a t t he Bay h Bi 11 Wo u 1 d Re a 11 y Do , " The Amer i can Rifleman, September.1972, p. 24.
12 11 How the 1968 Gun Act Caused A Shooting," Ibid., August ·1971, p. 46. -
13sherril, . .££.• cit., pp. 274-278.
14"How- the 1968 Gun Act Caused a Shooting," The American Rifleman, Augu~t 1971, p. 46.
15Mailing from "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," August 1975.
16"New Drive Against Handguns Begun," The American Rifleman, April 1973, p. 49.
17 John La chuck, "Conyer' s ·commit tee Gags Gun Owners," Guns and Ammo, November 1975, p. 86.
18Mailing .from "The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," June 1975.
85
19Ashley Halsey, Jr., "Attempt ·to Ban Handgun Ammo Seen as Attack on All Guns," American Rifleman, March 1975, p. 14.
20 . NRA Policy on Fireayms Controls.
2 1 "P r o t e c t i n g the P re s i den t , ." Time , 0 c to b e r 16 , 1 9 7 5 , p. 17.
22 Ibid., P• 7.
23Ibid., p. 16.
24christian Science Monitor, October 29, 1975, p. 7.
25The Oregonian, October 29, 1975, p. A6.
26The Oregon Journal, October 27, 1975, p. 24.
27 11 Big News That All News Media Missed," The American Rifleman, July 1975, p. 22.
CHAPTER VIII
THE MEDIA
In previous chapters we have seen the strong anti-gun
·sentiment expressed by the press following spectacular crimes.
Up to this point, the role of the press in gun control has
received little comment, and that of books and television has
been largely ign~red •. The reason for leaving the discussion
of the media to a separate chapter is that the mass media
comprises a strong force favoring gun control. Outside of
publications aimed specifically at the hunter or shooter,
the major national publications are almost monolithic in
their support of gun controi. The same can be said for the
three major television networks. Influential books have also
been written favoring gun control, whereas those opposing gun
c~ntrol seldom receive notice outside the pro-gun community.
The sum effect of this has been to make it almost impossible
for the urban American who .takes no irtterest in guns to believe
'/that there is more than one reasonable side to the gun control
controversy.
Some of the content of articles on gun control in the
m~ rcula ti on pews mag_uipes.. has already been examined.
More insight into these articles can be gained, however, by
examining the pictures which accompany the text.
87
H~:!'lo~car!:OQ'QS ..seem to be a favorite illustration to
accompany gun control articles. One of the~e cartoons printed
in an article in Newsweek shortly after the assassination of
John Kennedy showed a mail order gun ad b~aded "Sportsmen:
Kids! Maniacs:"! Another of these cartoons appeared in Time
after the attempted shooting of President Ford. This cartoon
f~atured Ly~ette Fromme as the ''1975 National Rifle Associa-
tion Poster Girl." She was pictured holding a pistol in one
hand and a sign saying: "Preserve our sacred right to bear
arms," in the other. 2 These cartoons are never balanced with
the inclusion of the anti-gun control cartoons which fre-
quently appear in shooting magazines. A misleading reproduc-
tion of an ad for model ·guns has previously been cited.
Anti-gun articles have by no means been limited solely
to news magazines. Women's magazines have run many in recent .-.. ---.. ----years. One in Good Housekeeping was entitled: "Let's Turn
in Our Guns As An Act of Conscience." Carl Bakal's anti-gun
book, The Right To Bear Arms, was based on a series of articles
he did for Harpers. Readers Digest, ·a magazine with an enor-
mous circulation, has run several anti-gun articles since the
early sixties, but none opposing gun control. Father Paul
Weber, s. J., writing in Christian Century, referred to the
NRA as "public enemy No. 2."4 The only publications, in fact,
in which one can expect to see the pro-gun view fairly rep-
resented is in hunting and shooting magazines; and occasion-
ally in conservative journals of opinion. These publications,
88
of course, reach only a small fraction of the numbers of
people reached by gun law proponents. Considering this, it
seems rather inaccurate of Congressman Michael Harrington
to accuse pro-gun forces of the " ••• use of their exten
sive media connections to state the details of proposed bills."5
The television networks also take the anti-gun line. -----------~-~~~~-~~---...,~'b.:1:t~~--\o~--..... ~.,-......... ~
Their view is presented both· in news and ent~;t;~;~~""-·ji-rograms.
In 1964, CBS broadcast a special entitled "Murder and the Right
to Bear Arms." Throughout this program, it was suggested that
the NRA was opposed to all gun legislation, though at the very
time of -the broadcast the organization was supporti~g Senator
Dodd's S. 1975. The only argument against gun control present-
ed on this show was the Constitutional one, while much footage
was given to relatives of people killed by gunmen, extremist
groups practicing with guns, and other scenes meant to draw an
emotional response to the issue.6 Though the program purported
to give a history ~f ~un control in the United States, no ~en-
tion was made of the famous Sullivan Act. Statistically, the
program erred when it tried to link the availability of ~uns
with suicides, and later pointed· to Japan and Sweden as mod-
els of countries with strict gun laws. The suicide rates in
Japan and · S we d _e n are among the w or 1 d ' s hi g h es t • 7 Tho ugh
"Murder and the Right to Bear Arms" was certainly one-sided,
there would be even less objective programs in the future.
NBC presented a special on the gun cnntrol
"Whose Right to Bear Arms." The mai.n
of this show was to associate gun owners with Nazis,
89
Ku Klux Klan, Charles Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald. Scenes
were randomly interspersed of such scenes as hunters shooting
ducks, and Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. An American
Nazi was shown holding out a rifle and sayin~:
You're going. to deed one of these things. You're going to know how to use it, and the Communists know. it, and that is why they're having a program, a campaign, to take away from you your right, your constitutional right, to keep and bear arms.8
A spokesman for the Ku Klux Klan was also asked for his
views on guns. His reply was: "We in the Klan advocate that
everyhody in America buy a.weapon • • We feel that in due
time they're going to need these weapons."9
~nother scene which urtdoubtedly evoked much emotio~ /sponse showed an NBC employee buying a Carcano rifle _o~ cthe anniversary of the shooting of President Kennedy and w~
f°rrg- . ab o u t the s tree ts o f D a 11 as w i. th i t • Ano the r em p 1 o ye e
again evoked the association with Nazism when he was shown
purchasing a swastika armband and a semi-automatic carbine
in the same store. Throughout the program, the only legiti-
mate argument presented agains~ gun control was, again, the
Constitutional one which is in some ways the least compelling
of many.10
nother program on gun control was presented on NBC ~ This special was entitled "A Shooting Gallery Cal~
This program deplored the large sales of guns and
connected this with the rise in crime. This program was filled
with films of gun crimes in progress. and again with tearful
interviews of those who had been shot. The argument for self-
90
defense was presented by a cheerful old man gleefully antici
pating shooting an assailant.11 In one way, the very unfair-
ness of this special was an advantage to pro-gun forces since
it led.to one of the few articles defending them that has ever
appeared in a mass circulation magazine.
Writing in TV Guide, Patrick Bucha~an scourged "Shooting .
Gallery" as " • • a simplistic, emotional, single dimensional
cri ~ coeur against the hand gun in American society." 12
Buchanan went on to oppose a Saturday night special ban on the
grounds that it woul~ not keep the criminal from o~taining a
tool of his trade. Confiscation of all handguns was also
opposed by Buchanan who felt that this step would create a
situation similar to prohibition, with normally honest citizens
becoming criminals by refusing to surrender their property.
·Buchanan answered the assertion that the presence of handguns
is the cause of crime in the following manner: (
1 Those millions ~f handguns purchases each year
represent millions o~ votes of no confidence ·by the American people i~ the criminal justice system of the United States.· They are more an effect than
~
I
a cause of crime • • • The explosion in gun sales represents the very rational decisions of very rational but frightened Americans who have concluded, with justification, that their government cannot protect them, and, therefore, they had best provide for their own protection.13 J
While "A Shooting Gallery Called America" attacked the use
of ·guns for self-defense, another program telecast in 1975 at-
tacked their use in hunting. This program, broadcast by CBS,
was entitled "The Guns of Autumn". "The Guns of Autumn" became
a subject of· controversy when all but one of its sponsors with-
91
drew their support of the program because of protests from
shooters' groups. The objection to "The Guns of Autumn" is . / I
that it depicted the atypical hunter as typical. Hunters
were shown shooting animals that were absolutely helpless,
handling guns in an unsafe manner, littering the landscape,
and doin~ numerous other objectionable things. There was no
effort at all to present the typical, careful hunter.14 Ever~-
one knows there are unscrupuious hunters--shooting magazines
have voiced concern over t~em for years~-but they are not
typi~al. ·----·"/
To the credit of CBS, shooters were given a chance to
answer "The Guns of Autumn" in a program entitled-"Echoes of
The Guns of Autumn". This program was not telecast in prime
time, however, but on a Sunday afternoon. It has been asser-
ted that pro-hunting $hows on ~elevision more than balance
"The Guns of Autumn." There is, however, only one pro-hunting "---- ,,. _____________ _ sjl.o-w~on network t~_LeYis.i.0-n.----T.his program is "The American _______ _..._ __ , __ .., ______ , ... ____ " _ _. ______ _ Sportsman~~hich is broadcast a few weeks a year on Sunday ------afternoons. Big game hunting ceased to be depicted on "The
American Sportsman" several years ago due to pressure from anti-
hunting groups.
Even in entertainment programs, the. gun is attacked.
in The Family," Archie Bunker is congratulated by a man ----~_...~- ..
his televised editorial against gun control. The man then
a gun on him and robs him. On "Mccloud," the Marshall says the
entire polic~ force would be thankful if strict laws confiscated
92
all guns. On "Good Times" the entire family is aghast when the
husb,nd brings home a gun, and delighted when he sees the
of ~is ways and discards it. The examples are endless.
error
There have been four major books published on gun control
in America: The.Right to Bear Arms (later re-titled No Right
to Bear Arms) by Carl Bakal; The Saturday Night Special by
·Robert She!ril~ To Keep and Bear Arms by Bill R. Davidson; and
Gun Control by Robert Kukla. The first two books favor gun
control while the latter two oppose it. The pro-gun books have
scarcely penetrated beyond the shooting community and thus . I
merit no discussion here, while the anti-gun books have received \
much national attention. ~
Bakal's book has been the most popular and influential
work on the subject of gun control in the United States. This
book originally appeared in 1966, when Dodd's s. 1592 was under
consideration, and was re-issued under its new title after the
shooting of Robert Kennedy. Bakal plays heavily upon the theme
that gun control has been blocked by an enormously strong gun
lobby, headed by the NRA and financially backed by the arms in-
dustry. Bakal never mentions that only 22% of the NRA's income
comes from the arms industry,15 an amount derived from adver-
tisements in The American Rifleman. Neither does Bakal mention
the different stands sometimes taken by the NRA and the indus-
try on gun control.
Bakal's assertion that more than 750,000 Americans have
been killed by guns since 1900 has been frequently quoted. It
appears, however, that Bakal fabricated this figure. Govern-
93
ment statistics are not available on the number of Americans
killed by guns before 1930. To look at a sin~le year, Bakal
states that 7,873 murders occurred with firearms in 1933.
Attorney Ge~eral Homer Cummings (who was certainly not noted
for understatement) gave a figure of 3,514.16 Bakal's figure
is an error of grea.t proportions. One can find many other
errors, distortions, and omissions in Bakal's book.
Sherril's book, whose full title is The Saturday Night
~ecial and Other Guns with which Americans Won the West, Pro-
tected Bootleg Franchises, Slew Wildlife, Robbed Countless Banks,
S~ot Husbands Purposely and by Mistake & Killed Presidents--
Together with the Debate Over Continuing Same, was published in
1973. Sherril apparently would like to see America disarmed
down to the last cap gun, but ultimately concludes that America
is too corrupt and too under the thrall of the gun lobby to take
even a faltering step in this direction.
One of Sherril's proposals is that the police should be
disarmed before the rest of the citizenry. He gives five "splen-
did reasons" for taking this step. Here are two of them:
Splendid reason 1: Cops are morally inferior to the rest of the community ••• Splended reason 3: Cops range from mentally odd to mentally unbalanced.17
· Sherril also comments on the Kenyon Ballew incident. He
asserts that this tragedy occurred as a result of a conspiracy
between the NRA and the Treasury Department to convince the
public that gun laws are bad.18 This book is replete with simi-
larly bizarre theories and ideas. Despite this, it received
excellent reviews in leading publications. )
_ ___{ Considering the treatment that guns have received in
popular media, it is surprising that even one-third of the
94
population continues to oppose confiscation laws. How possi-
bly can the person who is not involved in the shooting sports
come to any conclusion other than that guns are a menace to
our society and should be removed from it? The gun is seen
by them only as a tool of the criminal,.the mentally unbalanced,
and the political extremists. Hunting and self-defense are )
attacked and target shooting is ignored. It is clear also why \ !
opposition to gun laws comes mainly from the West and the
South. It is in these areas that people are nearest to their
frontier heritage and are most likely to learn about guns
through personal experience, or that of acquaintances rather
than through the mass media. Conversely, one can see why the
media takes the stand it does. The television networks and
the major publications are based in the urban east where they
are farthest from the influence of the frontier. They probably
represent the opinion o~ their section, but not of the nation
as a ·whole. The problem is, with their great influence, the
mass media are trying to mold the entire nation after their
own image.
/ I
CHAPTER VIII
NOTES J,
l"Right to Bear Arms," Newsweek, December 9, 1963, p. 70.
2"Protectin~ the President," Time, October 6, 1975, p.17.
3wi 1 liam Marich ester, "Let's Turn In Our G.uns as an Act of Conscience," Goo<l Housekeeping, November 1968, 1'• 167.
4Paul J. Weber, "The National Rifle Association: Public Enemy No. 2," Christian Century, October 16, 1974, p. 95R.
SMichael J. Harringt.on, "The Politics of Gun Control," The Nation, January 12, 1974, p. 42.
6Kukla, £.E.• cit., pp. 64-67.
7Richard Starnes, "You Might Call It, 'CBS Distorts,'" Field and Stream, September 1964, pp. 20-22.
8Kukla, ~· cit., p. 225.
9Ibid. lOrbid., p. 227.
llPatrick Buchanan, "Why America is Becomin~ an Armed Camp," reprinted from TV Guide in Shooting Times, September 1975, pp. 42-43.
12Ibid. 131bid.
14Kevin Phillips, "Guns of Autumn 'Misses Bullseye But Still Scores,'" TV Guide, September 'J.7, 1975, pp. A3-4.
15Harrington, £.E.• cit., p. 41.
16Kukla, ~· cit., p. 215.
17Sherril, ~· cit., pp. 248; 258.
18 ! )'i_!_~ • , p p • ~ 7 8 - 2 Rn •
CHAPT.ER IX
CONCLUSIONS
The arguments in the gun control controversy have scarce-
ly changed since its beginning. Proponents of gun cont~ol argue r----_~--------~~-~~~~~~-
t hat strictly regulating the sale of, or prohibiting some or all ----------- ------- -..:..._ ..._ -... -.. ~ -.. - ...... - -~-·- ... ---·----~----- ..... ·------.. --...... ______________ ,_ .. .._ __ , ................ t y ~-e~-~-~~_!~!ms w i 11 red u c ~~-~.~~~~~-~--~C:.!.i mes • _ 0 p,,-o-n-en-t:~-~ ~ J-~un control assert that it will not. Supporters of gun control ---- -~---------- ... ---.....------..._ ------~ maintain that efforts to pass strict legislation have been
thwarted by a small but powerful gun lobby. Shooters deny
this. Gun own~rs, on the other hand, avow that even registra-
tion of firearms is too harsh a step since it will lead to con-
fiscation. Let -us, in conclusion, look at these arguments.
The matter of the gun lobby has already 'been discussed.
A gun lobby does exist in that the NRA was in recent years
forced to register·as such, but how ca~ any reasonable person
believe that an organization with slightly over one million
members, receiving only one-fifth of its income from the arms
industry, can thwart the strong desires of 60 to 80% of the
American public? While the NRA has claimed credit for the
defeat of some of its political opponents, we must realistically
evaluate how much imp~ct its one million members have at the
ballot box. The NRA is not a hireling of the arms industry,
and it should be remembered that the wishes of both the industry
1
I~ arms i~ and NRA have been beaten in Congress: that of the
try by the failure to ban imports of military guns in the late
Fifties, and that of the NRA by the passage of the FGCA. The
reason that stricter gun control ·1aws have not been adopted
is simple: those opposing gun control care more about the
issue than those favoring it. Legislators have voted against
gun control either because they ideologically oppose it, or
because they feel they are better representing their consti-
tHents by voting for the interests of those with the strong-
est beliefs, though not necessarily the strongest numbers.
There are seve~al reasons why the quality of pro-gun sentiment
is higher than that of anti-gun sentiment.
The forces opposing gun control are stronger in their
beliefs than their opponents,first, because they fear an in-
fringement on one of their major interests. The majority
who oppose gun control are among the 50% of the population who
are gun owners. They face a tangible loss through either the
fees and red tape of registration and licensing, or the great-
er loss of confiscation. Secondly, the gun is more than just
a tool or hobby to many Americans. These gun owners have a
strong sense of the role of the gun in the building of America
and feel it is their birthright and heritage to be armed.
These are the citizens most acutely aware of their frontier
heritage. Lastly, the pro-gun person is likely to be stronger
in his beliefs because he is probably familiar with the argu-
ments of both sides of the controversy, and has made a conscious
'.~) ~
~~~~. _.,,./ 11""'"".p
choice between them. A person cannot help but hear the anti-
gun arguments if he watches television or reads the major
national magazines. One must make a special effort to learn
the best arguments of the pro-gun faction. Certainly, any
non-gun owner who opposes.gun control must have made such an
effort.
Propon~nts of gun control, on the other hand, are more
likely to be swayed by emotionalism.
---~ Certainly, anti-gun
sentiment runs highest after sensational crimes and ebbs at
other times. The fact that much anti-gun sentiment is not
well thought out is indicated too b~ a poll which showed 77%
favoring gun control,. but only 51% believin~ that it would
result in less violence in this country.I As previously
indicated, anti-gun factions are also likely to have arrived
at their opinions thro~gh contact with only the mor~ popular
sources. None of the foregoing in any way intimates that there
are not many gun control advocates who have arrived at their
opinions through a careful and deta~led study of the subject.
In the question of whether gun control reduces viol~
c r ~-W-O..·· have a 1 ready seen that the gun cont r o 1 previous 1 y 1-
enacted in the United States has not done this. The reason
for this lack of effectiveness, accordin~ to those seekinp.
g~n control, is that current laws are not strong enough to
have any effect. This assertio~ is usually followed by the
example of a European nation with strict gun laws and
low violent crime rates. Since Britain is the most common
~ \~~
example, let us now examine the efficacy of the gun laws of
that nation.
Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of Britain's West
Yorkshire Constabulary, has written an extensive study of
~is country's firearms laws entitled Firearms Control. Here
is·his evaluation of the effect of Britain's laws in reducing
the use of .guns in crime:
No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rathe~ startling conclusion that th~ use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal.or lunatic, could buy any type of firearms without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before.2
Greenwood's figures also indicate that use of guns in
crime would not have been higher without controls.3
The most logical argument for gun control is not that it
will have any immediate effect, but that it will eventually dry
up the supply of guns for criminals. Here is Greenwood's
luation of this theory:
The evidence produced in Chapter 15 indicates that fifty years of very stri~t controls on pistols have left a very vast pool of illegal weapons. Large numbers are surrendered to the police each year and it is difficult to·avoid the conclusion that this is only the tip of the iceberg .•• If this statement is true in relation to pistols it must be much more so in relation to shotguns. Strict controls on pistols since 1920 have failed to bring under control large numbers of these weapons. The less strict controls on shotguns have applied since 1968 and, on this evidence, it would seem that the numbers of illegally held shotguns will still be vast in the year 2000.4
The ultimate desirability of gun control as a law en-
forcement aid is summarized by Greenwood as follows:
To continue with the .Process of attempting to deal with the criminal use of firearms by placing more restrictions on legitimate users is not likely to achieve anything. But the great danger lies, not in the ineffectiveness of such restrictions, but in a belief that t~ey will solve the problem.5
While we are looking at Europe, let us not forget
100
Switzerland, which has the loosest gun control laws on the·
continent. Also, Switzerland's system of universal military
training requires that every man from twenty-one to fifty
keep his selective-fire rifle (classified in the U.- S. as a
. - \ machine gun) or pistol in his home along with ammunition for
it. Switzerland's armed crime ·rate is so low tha~ separate
statistics are not kept on it.6 -
As for the assertion by pro-gun forces that registration
would lead to confiscation, it is very clear that this might
well be the case. We have already examined a number of bills
which would have confiscated privately owned guns including
one which passed the Senate that would have prohibited one-
third of all American handguns. Bills which have had less
l -
success have propos~d more sweeping confiscations. A registra-
tion law would increase the chances for confiscation since
there are inevitably calls for strict~r measures as each gun
control law proyes ineffective. Thus confiscation of handp,uns
could lead to confiscation of long guns.
Besides the fact that it is ineffective as a crime de-
terren~, another argument against registration is an econ~mic
one. In 1968, government-sponsored research indicated that a k registration and licensing system similar to New York's would
101
cost $72.87 per gun owner.7 Inflation should put this figure
over $100. What was not paid of this fee directly by the ~un
owner would of course be paid by the taxpayer.
An argument frequently put forth for disarming even the
normally honest citizen is that fatal shootings resultin~ from
domestic quarrels would result only in injuries were a gun not
available. Whil~ it is true that statistics show that a person
who is shot is more likely to die than a person who is stabbed
or bludgeo~ed, it is likely that a person who really intends
to kill will use a gun, while many assaults with other weapons
are really intended only to result in injury. After all,
people have never had a great deal of difficulty in killing
other people with knives when they really wished to do so.
At any rate, this seems a flimsy argumen~ for disarmin~ the
population at large.
Accidental deaths with firearms are also frequently
~
c i t e· d a s a reason f o r en a c t in g s t r i c t gun con t r o 1 1 e g i s 1 a ti on ~
It is, of course, true that if fewer people had ~uns, fewer
p e o p 1 e w o u 1 d have a cc i dent s w i th guns • O:R e-= h l~s ~ to re pea t
s ~-he a r-d--a. r g u.m.e n ts , but it is e qua 11 y true that i f
le~s people had cars, less people would have accidents with
cars; and if less people swam, less people would drown.
Owning a gun, like many ·other th~ngs, incurs certain respon
sibilities which if not properly assumed can lead to disaster.
Statistics show· that gun ownership is relatively safe--20 times
safer than driving and over three times safer than water
102
sports.R Again, in preventin~ accidents, we cannot penalize
many for the mistakes of the few.
We have already examined the attacks upon traditionally
acceptable uses of guns which have arisen in recent times.
About target shooting and hunting there is little to say other
than that in reality target ranges are not often frequented by
Nazis or Klansme~~ and t~e ~verage hunter is not the type
portrayed in "The Guns of Autumn." Self-defense, however,
bears further comment.
First, let us very briefly consider the moral question
in self-defense. It is frequently decried in print that
householders or small businessmen wish to meet a poor house
breaker or robber with a dea~ly weapon. While it is true that
most robbers and burglars are unarmed and probably not danger
ous, in the age of Charles Manson, who can blame an honest
c i t i z en f o r n.o t wan ting to. take a ch an c e ? Too , mos t p e op 1 e
who keep guns for defense do not intend to use the gun u~less
the criminal seems dangerous. Even if there is some doubt as
to the danger posed by a burglar, which is it preferable to
risk: the life of a felon, or the life of one's self and one's
family?
From a practical standpoint, there is considerable dis-
pute, even among law enforcement officials, as to the ability
of people to defend themselves with guns. In a televised
interview in October 1975, Police Chief Bruce Baker of Portland,
Oregon, said of handguns: " ••• they don't protect anyone,"
and called for a ban on their sale to private citizens. On
10 3
the other hand, Chief Edward Davis of Los Angeles has opposed
any further gun control legislation, and has advised citizens
that it.is their responsibility to protect their homes and
family since the police cannot always be presen~.9
There arc not a great deal of statistics available to
indicate how frequently guns are used by private citizens to
thwart crime. We do know, however('that two per cent of
home burglaries end in the burglar being captured or shot by
ar"led citizens)o This figure has frequently been cited by
gun control proponents as evidence that guns are seldom useful
for defense. Whether two per cent of a certain crime being
stopped hy nrmed citizen~ is a low figure is certainly a sub
jective judgement. ~owever, when one considers that guns are
present in only half of all American homes, and that many
people have no intention of using their guns .for defense, the
~
figure of two per cent appears in a different light. Th is ~
figure also appears in a diffetent light when one considers
that only one-fifth of such crimes result in arrest by the
police~ One other figure that is available on the use of
guns by private citizens against criminals is that 45 per cent
of all criminals shot in Chicago during its lawless decade ·of
the Thirties were shot by pr~vate individuals.12
The frequently heard assertion that handguns are meant
only to kill people should also be dealt with. Rebuttal need /
not be lengthy. The statement is simply not true. Reference
to a few shoo ting magazines should reveal to anyone that hand.-
guns are extensively used for hunting and target shooting.
104
In summary, the case seems clear.~Restrictive gun
control does not achieve its goals and can only inconvenience
the honest citizen. It also seems clear why there are more
privately owned guns in America than any other country in
the world.
it is not an
The gun is a part of our frontier heritage, and
evil one. >.
d
CHAPTER IX
NOTES
lrhe Oregon Journal, October 27, 1975, p. 24. - -
2colin Greenwood, Firearms Control (Londo~: 1972), p. 243.
3Ib!.E_., p. 244.
41bid., p. 242.
5rhid., PP· 253-254.
6 Ibid., P• 4.
7skousen, ~· cit., p. 27.
8 NRA, Firearms and Laws Review, ~· cit., p. 85.
9skousen, ~· cit., p. 26.
l0"90 Million Guns and Rising,"~· cit., p. 41.
llJohn Conklin, Robbery (Philadelphia: 1972), p. 150.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Legislative Reference Service. Washing~on, D. C.: U. s. 1967.
Combating Crime in the U. S., Government Printing Of~ice,
Newton, George, and Franklin Zimring. Firearms and Violence in American Life. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969~
U. S. Congressional Record. 66th Congress, 1st Session--94th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D. C.: u. s. Government Printing Office, 1919-1975.
NEWSPAPERS
~hristian Science Monitor, 1973-1975.
New YorK Times, 1910~1975.
!he Oregonian, 1963-1975.
The Oregon Journal, 1975.
BO.OKS
Amber, "John. 1967 Gun Digest. Chicago: Gun Digest Company, 1967.
Berman, Lamar. Outlawing the Pistol. New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1926.
Rridges, TQ~Y· Black Powder'Gun Digest. Northfield, Illinois: Digest Books, 1972.
Caras,, Roger. Death as a Way of Life. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970.
Davidson, Bill. To Keep and Bear Arms. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969.
107
Gales' and Seaton's History of Debates.in Congress. Washington, D. C.: Gale's and Seaton, 1834.
Gallup, George. The Gallup Poll. New York: Random House, 1972.
Greenwood, Colin. Kegan Paul,
Firearms Control. 19 7 2.
London: Routled~e and
Hollon; W. Eugene. Frontier Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Huth, Hans. Nature and the American.~ Berkely: University of California Press, 1957. ·
Kukla, Robert. Gun Control. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1973. ·
NRA Firearms and.Laws Review. Washington, D. c.: National Rifle Association, 1975.
Peterson, Uarold. Pageant of the Gun. New York: Doubleday, 1967·.
Roosevelt, Theodore. Theodore Roosevelt's America. ed. by Farida A. Wiley. New York: Devin Adair, 1955.
Sherril, Robert. The Saturday Night Special. New York: Charterhouse, 1973.
Trefethen, James B. Pennsylvania:
American.a and Their Guns. Stackpole Books, 1967.
Harrisburg,
Webb, Walter Prescott. The Gr~at Plains. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1931.
The World of Guns. Skokie, Illinois: Publishers Development Corporation, 1964.
ARTICLES
!he American Rifleman 1937, 1958-75.
Bu c b a nan , Pa. t r i c k • "Why Ame r i ca is Be com in g an A rm e d Camp , " Reprinted from TV Guide in Shooting Times, September 1975.
Buckley, Willi·am. "On the Right", National.Review. August 2-3, 1966. .
"Closing the Mails to Murder," Literary Digest, January 10, 1925.
108
"Club Women Mapping War Against Gangsters," ·Literary Digest, June 16, 1934.
"Dear Playboy," Playboy, November, 1968; February, 1969.
"For Pocket Disarmament," Literary Digest, June 25, 1921.
"The Gun Under Fire," Time, June 21, 1968.
Hartington, Michael. "The Politics of Gun Control," The Nation, January 12, 1974.
Hofstadter, Richard, "America as a Gun Culture," American Heritage, August 1970.
"How Guilty is the Gun?", National Review, July 21, 1968.
"The Kind of Gun Control We Need," New Republic, June 22, 1968.
Lachuck, John. "Conyers' Committee Gags Gun Owners," Guns & Ammo, November 1975.
Manchester, William, "Lets 'lurn in Our Guns as an Act of Conscience," Good Housekeeping, November 1968.
"The Necessity of Pistol Toting," Literary Digest, August 6, 1921.
"90 Million Fi·rearms and Rapidly Rising," U. s. News and World Report, August 11, 1968.
"Our Point of View," Scientific American, November 1940, May 1941.
Phillips, Kevin. "Guns of Autumn Misses ·Bullseye But Still Scores," TV Guide, September 27, 1975.
"Protecting the President," Time, October 6, 1975.
"A Question of Guns," Newsweek, June 24, 1975.
"Right t<? Bear Arms," Newsweek, December 9, 1963.
"Sale of Firearms," New Republic, June 18, 1956.
Skousen, W. Cleon. "Gun Control or Political Control," Law and Order, October 1975.
"A Spike for the One Hand Gun," Literary Digest, December 13, 1924.
Starnes, Richard. "You Might Call it, 'CBS Distorts,'", Field & Stream, September 1964.
109
W a 1 k er , S tan 1 e y , "A ,Ga t Goo f y Na ti on , " rep r in t e d from Van i t y Fair, in Review of Reviews, August 1933.
Weber, Paul, "The National Rifle Association: Public Enemy No. 2," Christian Century, October 16, 1974.
PAMPHLETS
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Mailing, June 1975; August, 1975.
NRA. NRA Fact Book on Firearms Control.
NRA. NRA Policy on Firearms Control.
